Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on July 08, 2014, 06:32:31 pm
-
So tonight after our 3 girls had been asleep a few hours and I was saying goodnight to the wifey, the "Code Red" sirens sounded here for the first time since 2012. I live an entire 40 miles from the nearest possible point of origin for a rocket launch, so we had a leisurely 90 seconds to get into shelter (areas closer have as little as 15 seconds to get into cover (http://www.lifeunderfire.com/) from the moment a launch is detected). Since we had the foresight to use the apartment's reinforced concrete room for the kids' bedroom, we simply gathered up the cat and snuck in to the room ourselves. Pulling aside the makeshift bug screen on the window, I pulled the heavy steel shutter shut and settled down to wait for the all-clear signal. After a few seconds, we heard 3 vaguely distant (yet quite distinct) booms. Whether they were successful interceptions or ground impacts, we didn't know (I now know they hit, but apparently not anything damaging).
There's been 154 launches targeted at population centers in the last 24 hours. 29 of those were successfully intercepted. The military has received approval to call up 40,000 reservists. Knowing the excellent track record and reputation my reserves unit has, I would not be surprised if we are among the 40k. It's just the waiting, the not knowing, that's hard. Every time my phone rings, my heart jumps a little.
So anyway, that's my life recently. How's yours?
-
It's one big cluster**** gearing up yet again, and I can't imagine being caught in the midst of it. Stay safe.
-
I recall a poignant moment in discussion with my prof who taught a 300-level history course entitled "History of Modern Warfare" at my University. It was 2006. We were discussing the ****storm that is the Middle East generally. He shook his head at one point and said "the only way that conflict will be settled in my or your lifetime is if the state of Israel gets moved somewhere like Texas and the rest gets glassed."
I periodically wonder if he was right.
Stay safe, Sandwich. Glad to hear the Iron Dome systems are generally working as advertised. Hopefully the rest of the democratic world is going to apply some pressure into the situation soon.
-
Oh golly.........you stay safe and hope the family unit remains the same.
Stay low and keep behind someone bigger and paid more.
-
At times like this, I often think of the Israeli Arabs, who generally live at peace with their Jewish neighbors. The main difference between them and the Palestinians is that the Israeli Arabs - in particular their children - are not exposed to the kind of hatred and incitement that the Palestinians are brainwashed with on a daily basis.
Instead of glassing the area, I'd rather see the incitement end.
-
Prevention is always better than cure my friend.
-
At times like this, I often think of the Israeli Arabs, who generally live at peace with their Jewish neighbors. The main difference between them and the Palestinians is that the Israeli Arabs - in particular their children - are not exposed to the kind of hatred and incitement that the Palestinians are brainwashed with on a daily basis.
Instead of glassing the area, I'd rather see the incitement end.
The problem with Hamas is that they're fighting because, well, they need to keep fighting. It's the only thing that keeps them in power. Were they ever to win or lose, or even just have the population stop hating the Israel, then people'd realize that they're huge bastards and probably revolt promptly. Heck, they might realize that right already, but they're staying put due to the war. The only real way to sustain an unsustainable government is a constant state of emergency. Israel could probably agree to a whole lot of things if that meant the end of the war, but Hamas isn't fighting for anything at all. Even destruction of Israel would also mean end of Hamas as we know it. As such, the cure for this situation could be hard to find, and would still probably involve violence. Ideally, only against those who actually deserve it, but we know how this usually goes.
-
Sandwich, good luck. As others said, don't play Hero and make sure you get out of any engagements you get pushed into unscathed. I don't look forward to see what will be expected of you in such a target rich and cramped environment if a Gaza incursion is given the go-ahead as it appears it has, if I read the news correctly.
-
Good luck Sandwich.
And yes, the Israeli Arabs. It shows the Arab people are not bad people and can coexist with Israelis. It's a terrible shame you have terrorists exploiting the people and poisoning their minds. People are just people at the end of the day and can mostly get along with each other under normal circumstances.
-
hope you and the family stay safe
-
Well, I've been invited to the party. No idea when it ends, and I doubt I'll be online much while there. Cya when I get back. :)
-
Well, I've been invited to the party. No idea when it ends, and I doubt I'll be online much while there. Cya when I get back. :)
see you on the other side
-
Take care, mate.
-
I'll be thinking of you.
-
Praying for you. And the situation.
-
Doubt he'll get to read this for a few days but the usual applies. Check twice. Confirm targets. Change position. Risk isn't worth it. Etc etc.
-
I'd suggest refusing service, but I don't know what the typical sanctions are like over there. I suppose the second best choice would be to simply avoid anything that might have even the slightest chance of contributing to the overall cluster****.
-
I'd suggest refusing service, but I don't know what the typical sanctions are like over there. I suppose the second best choice would be to simply avoid anything that might have even the slightest chance of contributing to the overall cluster****.
From my very limited understanding of Israelian draft, you are only allowed to refuse service if you are an orthodox jewish woman or if you are performing services which are vital to the function of society (like, say, being a doctor).
-
Stay safe, Sandwich.
-
Well that was interesting.
Apparently we had more soldiers than spaces in our APCs, so they released a couple of us to go home. I got back just before midnight the same day I left.
I blame prayer. :)
-
Apparently we had more soldiers than spaces in our APCs,
I do not know if I should find this hilarious or astonishing (how much soldiers do you have exactly?)
EDITed because it sounded a lot more severe then I intended.
-
Apparently we had more soldiers than spaces in our APCs,
I do not know if I should find this hilarious or deeply worrying (how much soldiers does Israel have exactly, that it's massive military funding can not mechanize all of them?)
Im sure Sandwich can correct me if im wrong but there is a required service, with exceptions though. also there are certain requirements to be available for reserve units after the main service.
-
Well that was interesting.
Apparently we had more soldiers than spaces in our APCs, so they released a couple of us to go home. I got back just before midnight the same day I left.
I blame prayer. :)
Wow. Well, aren't you the lucky one!
How did they choose who to send back?
-
Good to hear, anyway. Logistics issues win again!
-
I'm relieved to hear you won't be in any potential maelstrom then, Sandwich! Now I'm a lot less worried. =)
Here's hoping things die down quickly so everything can get back to a more normal, stable situation.
Edit note: accidentally sandvich
-
Well, I wouldn't be at all surprised if staying home was actually much less safe.
-
Well that was interesting.
Apparently we had more soldiers than spaces in our APCs, so they released a couple of us to go home. I got back just before midnight the same day I left.
I blame prayer. :)
haha that's great :lol:
-
Well, I wouldn't be at all surprised if staying home was actually much less safe.
From my very limited understanding, the missiles being launched at israeli homes are not equipped with actual warheads, and as such are rather inneffective at killing people (as you also get a lot of time to take shelter). Sandwich being engaged in combat would involve people shooting bullets at him, which will most defenitely kill him.
-
Well, I wouldn't be at all surprised if staying home was actually much less safe.
From my very limited understanding, the missiles being launched at israeli homes are not equipped with actual warheads, and as such are rather inneffective at killing people (as you also get a lot of time to take shelter). Sandwich being engaged in combat would involve people shooting bullets at him, which will most defenitely kill him.
Well, I meant more like the mundane ways to die, like tripping and hitting your head or being in a traffic accident. If that happens while in active service, you're going to get medical attention right away, whereas if it happens at home, it'll likely take more time. Dying from a rocket attack is obviously a negligible risk in comparison, and AFAIK no israeli troops have gotten killed either. Therefore, soldiers are probably safer than civilians.
-
I read a headline that said an Israeli died, and now the cease-fire talks are over. Badly written headline, or are things really that one-sided? If this isn't the first Israeli death, wtf was that headline trying to say?
And yes I realize I could probably research it to find out, but this way I'm also telling you what's in the headlines!
-
I read a headline that said an Israeli died, and now the cease-fire talks are over. Badly written headline, or are things really that one-sided? If this isn't the first Israeli death, wtf was that headline trying to say?
And yes I realize I could probably research it to find out, but this way I'm also telling you what's in the headlines!
Well, indeed at least NY Times claims the first israeli fatality and puts the death tolls at 194:1.
-
An Israeli died of a heart-attack during a raid.
-
I guess the three teenagers kidnapped and murdered don't count. One of them was a US citizen, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers
-
I guess the three teenagers kidnapped and murdered don't count. One of them was a US citizen, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers
I don't think they do, for the same reason that Franz Ferdinand is not a WW1 casualty.
-
and even if they did, that'd put the figures at a much more reasonable 194:4
-
Yes. How dare Israel retaliate against another government launching explosives across its borders. Totally unreasonable.
-
But no one's ever said that's unreasonable.
-
and even if they did, that'd put the figures at a much more reasonable 194:4
I'm fairly certain you're capable of detecting obvious sarcasm, zookeeper.
-
Yes. How dare Israel retaliate against another government launching explosives across its borders. Totally unreasonable.
always with the moral absolutes
-
Indeed it is "reasonable". But it's also incredibly immoral. They could've responded in a way that would've resulted in far fewer civilian casualties, far fewer total casualties, but instead they optimized for minimum Israeli casualties.
Edit: can't tell if Scotty's earlier post was one or two levels of sarcasm.
-
and even if they did, that'd put the figures at a much more reasonable 194:4
I'm fairly certain you're capable of detecting obvious sarcasm, zookeeper.
Of course that was sarcasm. But everyone knows that it was sarcasm towards the notion that the retaliation was reasonable, and didn't imply that retaliation in itself is unreasonable... but then you chose to pretend that it was the latter anyway even though you know it wasn't the case. Which is what I was subtly trying to hint at.
-
I'm with zookeeper and Aardwolf on this one, it almost seems that these people are so busy fighting each other for so many decades now that they have absolutely lost any actual reasonable perspective on this. It's as if everyone is secretly pleased with the current status quo.
-
Yes. How dare Israel retaliate against another government launching explosives across its borders. Totally unreasonable.
Minor nitpick: The rockets send by Hamas are not equipped with actual warheads. Technically, they are not explosives but slightly more advanced versions of catapult stones, which is why they are horrendously blessfully ineffective.
At this point, I've stopped fussing about how both sides are obviously targeting each other's civilians. It be better if Israel would just swoop in and annex the entire region entirely instead of those halfish attempts they have done so far. **** the whole moral issues and everything, they control everything that goes in and out of the region anyway, and it would ensure that they both have the means to have "boots on the ground" (so to speak) and bear more responsability (as they would be harming their own civilians at that point).
EDIT: because I was confused between the west bank and Gaza.
-
It's as if everyone is secretly pleased with the current status quo.
They probably are, TBH. Hamas needs someone to hate in order to keep it's tyrannical rule over the populace, and Israeli military needs an excuse to justify pouring funds into the military. They could've overran Gaza long ago, slaughtered Hamas and handed the place off to Fatah (the other, somewhat reasonable Palestinian government), if they really wanted peace and really cared about those people. The thing is, they don't. It's too bloody convenient for both parties to really change anything. Hamas' bombardment is pretty much harmless, and Israel never makes a move towards Gaza despite all their technology enabling them to flatten the place if they wanted. Both sides have a target to hate and build up arms against, which is vital for Hamas (it's too despotic to survive otherwise) and convenient for Israel (they can keep their military on high alert and keep building it up, among other things).
Oh, and don't mistake me for a conspiracy theorist. There's no need for a conspiracy. It's the natural result of human selfishness and refusal to just see other human on the other side of the barricade. The situation could probably be resolved by a compromise, but of course nobody in power had ever though of it. That's neither the first time nor the last something like this happened.
-
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of dissent amongst the Palestinians, and probably a fair amount amongst the Israelis as well. It's just the governments that like the status quo. And you can be sure that the existing government (or "politicians" if you don't think it's systemic) will do everything they can to keep any aspiring "sane" politician out of office (as is the case in the USA as well).
-
It's as if everyone is secretly pleased with the current status quo.
They probably are, TBH. Hamas needs someone to hate in order to keep it's tyrannical rule over the populace, and Israeli military needs an excuse to justify pouring funds into the military. They could've overran Gaza long ago, slaughtered Hamas and handed the place off to Fatah (the other, somewhat reasonable Palestinian government), if they really wanted peace and really cared about those people. The thing is, they don't. It's too bloody convenient for both parties to really change anything. Hamas' bombardment is pretty much harmless, and Israel never makes a move towards Gaza despite all their technology enabling them to flatten the place if they wanted. Both sides have a target to hate and build up arms against, which is vital for Hamas (it's too despotic to survive otherwise) and convenient for Israel (they can keep their military on high alert and keep building it up, among other things).
Oh, and don't mistake me for a conspiracy theorist. There's no need for a conspiracy. It's the natural result of human selfishness and refusal to just see other human on the other side of the barricade. The situation could probably be resolved by a compromise, but of course nobody in power had ever though of it. That's neither the first time nor the last something like this happened.
I'm not so sure about this. Now Russian attention is on Ukraine, Syria and Iraq on ISIL, Egypt with internal stuff, for the first time Israel might very well be able to get to work. Casualty numbers usually tend to be downplayed for sake of morale and maintaining paradigms, or alternately simply the Fog of War.
What I'm more worried about is if rationality is being replaced by bloodlust on either side. When you are being bombed constantly or even lose family members, it's hard to get much moderation going. To continually have to rush to bunkers and hope for the best..
To stop terrorism you've got to fight them with a charm offensive, not hurt their families and civilian infrastructure. Things are sure to only get worse at this rate.
What of the Palestinians living in Israel that hear that family in Gaza was killed in collateral damage?
The family member of a killed IDF soldier? An Israeli home owner's bombed home?
An eye for an eye, basically.
Sure seems like in order for there to be peace in Israel, the Israelites might have to resort to similar actions as the Nazis of WW2 during occupation or the Roman Empire's times (elimination of everyone above six years old, all male children to be trained for the army).
Who benefits, is the question I believe is always important to consider. Maybe that's a question that can't be answered as this went on for so long.
I really don't know the answer to that yet, looking at it as neutral as I can.
Most importantly, Sandwich, I hope you won't be called in with that extra 18.000 troops Israel is sending. I wouldn't want to be anyone in that region right now, obviously..
(Edit note: Better formatting)
-
Like dragon says the domestic and international propaganda that the ongoing, generally low intensity conflict as it is benefits both sides, Hamas gets to play the underdog fighting the oppressors trying to take and hold what isn't theirs, Israel gets to play the nation under attack card.
The whole situation greatly benefits both sides as its a game both sides understand the rules to, but as with politics, it is a self reinforcing game, you have to play the game to progress, but then you have to maintain the game to maintain your position.
No conspiracy, it is what it is and its how politics has worked for centuries, Normally the only time the game changes is if there is a monumental event which breaks the board and typically when that happens everyone is screwed and usually for a long time. There are exceptions but they are relatively rare and take at a minimum decades to achieve
-
In regards to some particularly offensive comments Sandwich made about Israeli Arabs earlier in this thread, I post this. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/sayed-kashua-why-i-have-to-leave-israel)
-
some particularly offensive comments Sandwich made about Israeli Arabs earlier in this thread
...erh...uh...what?
You mean the thing about Israeli Arabs living peacefully with their neighbors proving that it's completely possible for the Palestinians and Israel to live together, if only hamas (etc) wasn't running a propaganda job that makes fox news look like a paragon of unbiased reporting?
-
some particularly offensive comments Sandwich made about Israeli Arabs earlier in this thread
...erh...uh...what?
You mean the thing about Israeli Arabs living peacefully with their neighbors proving that it's completely possible for the Palestinians and Israel to live together, if only hamas (etc) wasn't running a propaganda job that makes fox news look like a paragon of unbiased reporting?
:wakka:
-
some particularly offensive comments Sandwich made about Israeli Arabs earlier in this thread
...erh...uh...what?
You mean the thing about Israeli Arabs living peacefully with their neighbors proving that it's completely possible for the Palestinians and Israel to live together, if only hamas (etc) wasn't running a propaganda job that makes fox news look like a paragon of unbiased reporting?
Yes, I mean the thing about Arabs being just fine so long as they're passive and uncritical Israelis and that the only reason they would take issue with Israel is because they're brainwashed terrorists.
-
PH, seriously if your going to pick a fight with a site admin.... dont start by firing blanks.
At times like this, I often think of the Israeli Arabs, who generally live at peace with their Jewish neighbors. The main difference between them and the Palestinians is that the Israeli Arabs - in particular their children - are not exposed to the kind of hatred and incitement that the Palestinians are brainwashed with on a daily basis.
Instead of glassing the area, I'd rather see the incitement end.
in summary, the ones that arn't brainwashed into marter idealising nutcases are generally ok.
-
Sounds more like "the Arabs who live in Israel aren't getting brainwashed" to me.
And (optimistically) it shouldn't matter that Sandwich is an admin, because he should have the self-restraint to not use his admin powers for such trivialities as this.
-
Yes, I mean the thing about Arabs being just fine so long as they're passive and uncritical Israelis and that the only reason they would take issue with Israel is because they're brainwashed terrorists.
and by passive you mean, not lobbing rockets at children? and by uncritical you mean... I mean... I don't even... I don't even know where you get this. where does "I wish everyone could live peacefully with one's neighbor" translate into "I wish they all knew their place, under my boot licking it clean and liking it". I don't think he could have said a more innocent and innocuous statement of hope, and you turn it into an insult? Seriously all he said about them is they were fine and he felt that the people in Gaza aren't any different other than the ****ty environment. As in there is hope that the situation can resolve it's self into a situation that's good for everyone. I mean what can he possibly say that you won't twist into some sort of insane zionist screed? "hey guys just checking in to let you know I'm alive" => "I have killed so many and yet I thurst for more blood muhahahaha!!!"
you are a bad person and you should feel bad. ಠ_ಠ
-
And (optimistically) it shouldn't matter that Sandwich is an admin, because he should have the self-restraint to not use his admin powers for such trivialities as this.
you contribute meaningfully to discussion, and do not disrupt it for others. This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment
...
- HLP has a 'Report Post' Function. In FreeSpace terms, think of this as "Call Support." When you have a problem with a post or thread, use this function to bring it to the attention of the HLP staff.
aiming what looks to me to be a personal attack at a site admin is a pretty guaranteed way to having it examined further. While I dont doubt PH's post was made in good faith, the wording leaves this open.
Now, interesting point. It looks like I have also fallen foul of the same rule/interpritation here in my first post about this. And while that dosnt lessen my point, I do need to apologise for that and so I am sorry.
-
How is that a personal attack :confused: s/should have/has?
Read: "No, that was not a personal attack."
-
I suppose it could be taken as an attack on his character, implying that he might stoop to that even though it has rarely been an issue on HLP. and to my knowledge never Sandy.
but that would be stretching things and I don't know why he brought it up like that either. lots of weird behavior in this thread lately.
-
At the moment we don't know sandwiches current status. We wish him well. Don't let this escalate.
-
PH, seriously if your going to pick a fight with a site admin.... dont start by firing blanks.
At times like this, I often think of the Israeli Arabs, who generally live at peace with their Jewish neighbors. The main difference between them and the Palestinians is that the Israeli Arabs - in particular their children - are not exposed to the kind of hatred and incitement that the Palestinians are brainwashed with on a daily basis.
Instead of glassing the area, I'd rather see the incitement end.
in summary, the ones that arn't brainwashed into marter idealising nutcases are generally ok.
You're leaving out a ton of additional meaning in that summary, is all I can say. Sandwich is portraying this conflict as a unilateral affair brought about entirely because of the aggression of the 'brainwashed' Palestinian populace, one in which Israel bears no agency or responsibility except in 'self-defence'. In support of this he appropriates the Israeli Arabs as his poster children, claiming that they live peacefully and happily with their Jewish neighbours; and meanwhile an actual Israeli Arab feels that he and his family have to leave their homeland, because he no longer feels safe amidst the rising aggression of the Jewish majority.
I hope you can see why I find this narrative very annoying, at least.
-
Annoying narrative != offensive remarks about an ethnic/religious group.
Besides which, you will fail at providing evidence that the Palestinian populace is not subjected to massive amounts of propaganda.
-
His point is that both sides have an annoying narrative, and that both sides are butchering each other quite happily, not that the Palestinian populace isn't subjected to propaganda. I'm not sure where you're seeing "ethnic remarks" but I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with PH's point. :doubt:
-
I'm still around... as I'm a freelance web designer/developer, you can imagine how my clients might have a somewhat heavier than usual workload for me, considering the situation here... ;)
From my very limited understanding, the missiles being launched at israeli homes are not equipped with actual warheads, and as such are rather inneffective at killing people (as you also get a lot of time to take shelter). Sandwich being engaged in combat would involve people shooting bullets at him, which will most defenitely kill him.
Minor nitpick: The rockets send by Hamas are not equipped with actual warheads. Technically, they are not explosives but slightly more advanced versions of catapult stones, which is why they are horrendously blessfully ineffective.
Yeahno. They definitely have warheads:
(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2014/07/F140721YS21-635x357.jpg)
Caption: A house in Sderot hit by a rocket fired from Gaza on July 21, 2014. (Photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
The only thing I've heard to indicate that some might not was the rumor that Hamas had to remove the warheads from the rockets they lobbed in the direction of Haifa in order to get the rockets to fly that far. It's safe to say that most of the ~1,900 other rockets have had warheads.
...and AFAIK no israeli troops have gotten killed either.
I realize that this was posted before we began the ground offensive, and as such was accurate at the time of posting. Just wanted to mention that as of now, there've been 25 IDF soldiers killed.
Indeed it is "reasonable". But it's also incredibly immoral. They could've responded in a way that would've resulted in far fewer civilian casualties, far fewer total casualties, but instead they optimized for minimum Israeli casualties.
At this point, I've stopped fussing about how both sides are obviously targeting each other's civilians.
There's definitely ways the Palestinian death toll could have been drastically reduced. Hamas could have set up rocket manufacturing centers, mobile rocket launchers, regional HQs, and cross-border tunnel openings in NOT civilian homes, kindergartens, hospitals, and schools. Hamas could have defended the very civilians they're supposedly fighting for instead of forcing the civilians to defend Hamas. Keeping their own civilians out of harm's way would have made a major difference in the situation. Not only would it have drastically reduced the Palestinian civilian death toll, but it would have meant that the Israeli offensive would have had much more legitimacy in the wor-oh wait, nevermind.
Ok, so you still claim Israel could do more to avoid civilian casualties? Very well... first of all, name one other country and incident - from the beginning of time until now - when a country went to the lengths Israel has gone to to avoid civilian casualties. Just one, and I'll grant you that Israel could do more.
Assuming you can come up with a mere single instance, I'd like to hear your suggestions on what, exactly, Israel should change in how it deals with Hamas and the 1,900+ rockets they've launched. Perhaps there's actually something we missed, but that you, with your vast military experience in combatting terrorism in urban environments, have thought of. After all, stranger things (http://biblehub.com/numbers/22-28.htm) have happened.
It be better if Israel would just swoop in and annex the entire region entirely instead of those halfish attempts they have done so far. **** the whole moral issues and everything, they control everything that goes in and out of the region anyway, and it would ensure that they both have the means to have "boots on the ground" (so to speak) and bear more responsability (as they would be harming their own civilians at that point).
That's one possible solution, that a number of voices have been calling out for here. I kinda support it myself, actually. Hamas isn't doing any good for the Palestinians, but if we just eradicate Hamas and pull back out, we leave a power vacuum that's just as likely to be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaida as anything else. It's certainly not an ideal solution by any means, but overall it has the potential to improve the Palestinian situation by ensuring that international aid funds go towards building homes, kindergartens, and hospitals instead of cross-border tunnel networks and underground rocket factories. Another benefit might be an ability to prevent the hate-laden, death-obsessed brainwashing of children (!!!) in kindergartens and schools.
Hamas needs someone to hate in order to keep it's tyrannical rule over the populace, and Israeli military needs an excuse to justify pouring funds into the military. They could've overran Gaza long ago, slaughtered Hamas and handed the place off to Fatah (the other, somewhat reasonable Palestinian government), if they really wanted peace and really cared about those people. The thing is, they don't. It's too bloody convenient for both parties to really change anything. Hamas' bombardment is pretty much harmless, and Israel never makes a move towards Gaza despite all their technology enabling them to flatten the place if they wanted. Both sides have a target to hate and build up arms against, which is vital for Hamas (it's too despotic to survive otherwise) and convenient for Israel (they can keep their military on high alert and keep building it up, among other things).
So many issues with this...
Ok, first off, do you really think that it's Gaza, of all the threats around Israel, that's being used as an excuse to pour funds into the military? Gaza?? Not the Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Syria, not Egypt, not Turkey, not Iran, not France... Gaza???? O.o
Next point... have you seen the vitriol, hatred, and violence directed at anything and everything Israeli or Jewish in the last week or two? What for - assaulting Hamas after being bombarded by rockets? Imagine the backlash if we'd invaded just 'cuz. Don't get me wrong, I think we probably should have done that when the first rocket was launched from Gaza into Israel after we pulled out in 2005, world opinion be damned. But we didn't. Instead we hoped that, just perhaps, given what they claimed they wanted, the Palestinians would leave us in peace. Then they went and actually elected Hamas into power in 2006. Dumb us.
You're leaving out a ton of additional meaning in that summary, is all I can say. Sandwich is portraying this conflict as a unilateral affair brought about entirely because of the aggression of the 'brainwashed' Palestinian populace, one in which Israel bears no agency or responsibility except in 'self-defence'. In support of this he appropriates the Israeli Arabs as his poster children, claiming that they live peacefully and happily with their Jewish neighbours; and meanwhile an actual Israeli Arab feels that he and his family have to leave their homeland, because he no longer feels safe amidst the rising aggression of the Jewish majority.
I hope you can see why I find this narrative very annoying, at least.
You mockingly place quotes around the term 'self-defence'. Why? 1948. 1967. 1973. 1987. 2000. 2002. 2004. 2012. 2014. (those are not the rumored release dates of Duke Nukem Forever, btw). Do we not need defense? Should we just meekly go back into the gas chambers?
Tell me, did you hear the good news about that family in your city who had a healthy new baby boy the other day? No? Oh... how about that terrible murder/rape/shooting? That you heard about, right? Nobody in the media (understandably so) gives half a crap about the normal, happy, life-is-fine stuff. That's boring as heck, and doesn't sell. Violence sells. Unhappiness. Misfortune. Wrongness.
My point is that just because there's one unhappy Israeli-Arab (and yes, I'm sure there's more than just the one), doesn't mean there aren't multitudes of Israeli-Arabs who would much rather live in Israel than in any other Arab country in the world. Or didn't you hear that Arabs in Israel have better rights and freedoms than anywhere else in the Middle-East?
All that said, it seems to me like the Hamas is really, really bad for the Gazan Palestinians. I really hope they (Hamas) get dealt a truly fatal blow, and that the Palestinians actually elect someone decent instead of another set of oppressors. As long as they are being used as a base for terrorist operations against Israel, their situation will never improve. :-/
-
I put quotes around 'self-defence' inasmuch as it implies Israel's actions have been purely reactive, that it has never escalated or instigated violence. Cleaving to that mindset is going to accomplish nothing, and the same applies to your attitude that the proper road to peace is for the Palestinians to forego their own nation and assimilate into Israel.
-
That's one possible solution, that a number of voices have been calling out for here. I kinda support it myself, actually. Hamas isn't doing any good for the Palestinians, but if we just eradicate Hamas and pull back out, we leave a power vacuum that's just as likely to be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaida as anything else.
that dosnt sound like long term occupation to me, in fact it sounds like a faster in and out that Iraq, but with a more clearly defined justification, namely the Palestinians are firing rockets over the border with in any other situation would be an outright act of war
-
Hamas needs someone to hate in order to keep it's tyrannical rule over the populace, and Israeli military needs an excuse to justify pouring funds into the military. They could've overran Gaza long ago, slaughtered Hamas and handed the place off to Fatah (the other, somewhat reasonable Palestinian government), if they really wanted peace and really cared about those people. The thing is, they don't. It's too bloody convenient for both parties to really change anything. Hamas' bombardment is pretty much harmless, and Israel never makes a move towards Gaza despite all their technology enabling them to flatten the place if they wanted. Both sides have a target to hate and build up arms against, which is vital for Hamas (it's too despotic to survive otherwise) and convenient for Israel (they can keep their military on high alert and keep building it up, among other things).
So many issues with this...
Ok, first off, do you really think that it's Gaza, of all the threats around Israel, that's being used as an excuse to pour funds into the military? Gaza?? Not the Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Syria, not Egypt, not Turkey, not Iran, not France... Gaza???? O.o
Next point... have you seen the vitriol, hatred, and violence directed at anything and everything Israeli or Jewish in the last week or two? What for - assaulting Hamas after being bombarded by rockets? Imagine the backlash if we'd invaded just 'cuz. Don't get me wrong, I think we probably should have done that when the first rocket was launched from Gaza into Israel after we pulled out in 2005, world opinion be damned. But we didn't. Instead we hoped that, just perhaps, given what they claimed they wanted, the Palestinians would leave us in peace. Then they went and actually elected Hamas into power in 2006. Dumb us.
Last time I checked, Egypt and Syria were quite busy with problems of their own (and I have a feeling that the new government of Egypt might get along with Israel somewhat better). The others are a threat, but last time I checked, only Gaza was actually shooting at Israel (unless Hezbollah started doing this again. That said, Lebanon has been getting somewhat less fanatical lately). Also, what beef France has with Israel? I understand Turkey, they're pretty civilized, as far as Middle East goes, but I know they don't look at Israel fondly. But France?
I agree that retaliation wasn't nearly as swift as it should've been, and definitely not as swift as Israel's previous reactions to being attacked. You'd think world opinion wouldn't be that much of a problem after what was essentially an act of war on their part... Which is what got me thinking that someone somewhere found having such an active enemy nearby pretty convenient. But then, I don't have a high opinion of most of today's world leaders in general.
We'll see how this offensive goes. If they do it right, they could wipe Hamas out, perhaps capture or assassinate their leaders and break their command structure up. If they don't, it'll be just an incursion that'll quiet Hamas down for a while, but make no changes in the long run. We'll see. It's especially important to properly follow up on the attack. Ideally, Gaza would be occupied for a short period of time, then hold an election with UN monitoring.
As for the hatred, I'm hardly surprised. Hamas wants to spread hate, so they'll obviously play up any action against them to that effect. Especially since it distracts people from how horrible they are. Oh, and I'm sure that given the chance, Palestinians would swiftly vote Hamas out of power. It's not like Hamas intends to give them that chance, though.
-
The thing is a lot of people don't have time (or care) to look at the facts. And all they see is the news which shows the bodies going through the streets in Palestine, the buildings exploding in Palestine, which makes Israel look like the big bad bully. It's a lot easier for the news media to go to Palestine to get a story than to go to Israel.
-
Ok, so you still claim Israel could do more to avoid civilian casualties? Very well... first of all, name one other country and incident - from the beginning of time until now - when a country went to the lengths Israel has gone to to avoid civilian casualties. Just one, and I'll grant you that Israel could do more.
Japanese involvement in the War of 1812.
Don't bother looking it up, the answer is "they didn't get involved".
Assuming you can come up with a mere single instance, I'd like to hear your suggestions on what, exactly, Israel should change in how it deals with Hamas and the 1,900+ rockets they've launched.
How about "don't kill civilians". More specifically: "let the enemy waste their rockets".
You don't have to go to "great lengths" to not kill civilians. It takes literally zero effort. It's only when you add objectives like "destroy the enemy" that civilian casualties happen.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I get the impression that in the time it takes to launch a counterattack against a site that rockets are being launched from, most of the rockets will have already been launched.
Perhaps there's actually something we missed, but that you, with your vast military experience in combatting terrorism in urban environments, have thought of.
If anything it's experience in that subject that's the problem. Israel's response to "Hey they are shooting rockets at us" has been "We have experience combating terrorism in urban environments, let us go combat terrorism in urban environments!"; a more reasonable person would first ask "Is any (immediate) action necessary at all?". And if, as I suspect, their total rocket-launching capacity was not much more than what they actually managed to launch, the answer would be "No".
-
How about "don't kill civilians". More specifically: "let the enemy waste their rockets".
You don't have to go to "great lengths" to not kill civilians. It takes literally zero effort. It's only when you add objectives like "destroy the enemy" that civilian casualties happen.
The naivete in this statement is very nearly physically painful
No nation and/or country that wishes to remain its own nation and/or country can afford to outright ignore acts of war from its neighbors. Israel cannot afford to ignore these incidents with an urgency not surpassed anywhere in the world (with the possible and continuously fluctuating exception of Ukraine). That is the result when the majority of your neighbors have signed treaties declaring their intent to eradicate your entire nation.
I'm not going to pretend that Israel does everything right or are totally without reproach, but the circumstances are far less clear cut than that.
-
Seriously. I'm not a huge fan of many of Israel's past actions, and I think Bibi is a total nutjob, but if someone is shooting rockets at your civilians, you don't just sit on your hands and think "welp."
-
...
/*Punches Aardwolf in the nuts*/
your move...
-
@Bobboau: More like "attempts unsuccessfully to punch Aardwolf in the nuts, instead only injuring his fist on Aardwolf's fancy Iron Underpants system".
@Others: I'm still waiting for someone to show me figures on the efficacy of the counterattack. Or even to contest my claim that it was ineffective.
Did it actually affect the rate or volume of rocket fire? Without such action, would the rockets have been able to overwhelm the Iron Dome system? ...or been likely to accrue, through "lucky hits" in low-coverage areas, a kill count anywhere within an order of magnitude of the 194 cited earlier?
-
/*keeps trying... eventually scores a direct hit*/
-
@Bobboau: More like "attempts unsuccessfully to punch Aardwolf in the nuts, instead only injuring his fist on Aardwolf's fancy Iron Underpants system".
@Others: I'm still waiting for someone to show me figures on the efficacy of the counterattack. Or even to contest my claim that it was ineffective.
Did it actually affect the rate or volume of rocket fire? Without such action, would the rockets have been able to overwhelm the Iron Dome system? ...or been likely to accrue, through "lucky hits" in low-coverage areas, a kill count anywhere within an order of magnitude of the 194 cited earlier?
In realpolitik terms (i.e. the only ones that actually matter to Israel's survival as a state surrounded by hostile states), whether the counterattack has achieved any meaningful results is absolutely irrelevant.
Israel still exists because it has shown the propensity and the willingness to tell the folks that shoot at them to **** off. If the Israeli state ceases to respond to aggression, the fear is that the next aggressive move (or the next, or the next) will be a redux of the first few days of the Yom Kippur War. Israel cannot afford to take that risk simply because a few innocent folks got caught in the crossfire.
Your idealism is laudable. It would also get a lot more people killed.
-
All that matters is that our boi Sandvich is ok.
-
Ok, so you still claim Israel could do more to avoid civilian casualties? Very well... first of all, name one other country and incident - from the beginning of time until now - when a country went to the lengths Israel has gone to to avoid civilian casualties. Just one, and I'll grant you that Israel could do more.
Assuming you can come up with a mere single instance, I'd like to hear your suggestions on what, exactly, Israel should change in how it deals with Hamas and the 1,900+ rockets they've launched. Perhaps there's actually something we missed, but that you, with your vast military experience in combatting terrorism in urban environments, have thought of. After all, stranger things (http://biblehub.com/numbers/22-28.htm) have happened.
What exactly does Israel do to prevent civilian casualties?
How can it be compared to the 'new' measures Americans have taken in Afghanistan? (http://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff_end_air_war/all/). The gist of it being that they hardly employ airstrikes at all, only if they know they do not cause harm to civilians, a massive change from earlier strategies.
It be better if Israel would just swoop in and annex the entire region entirely instead of those halfish attempts they have done so far. **** the whole moral issues and everything, they control everything that goes in and out of the region anyway, and it would ensure that they both have the means to have "boots on the ground" (so to speak) and bear more responsability (as they would be harming their own civilians at that point).
That's one possible solution, that a number of voices have been calling out for here. I kinda support it myself, actually. Hamas isn't doing any good for the Palestinians, but if we just eradicate Hamas and pull back out, we leave a power vacuum that's just as likely to be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaida as anything else.
Hence annexing: Invade Gaza, and stay there. Not the half-arsed 4th-geneva-convention-violating pseudo-occupation currently ongoing in the west bank, mind: Full on land grab. Integrate Gaza into Israel entirely (and the west bank too whilst one is at it). If Israeli-Arabs indeed have it so much better, the most humane solution would be to turn everyone you can into israeli-arabs.
-
thing is a long term annexing of gaza would force Israel's international allies to back off with their support, possibly denounce the action in the process and then on top of that, as the arabs are traditionally customers of Russia so they will probably press for measures to be put in place to hurt Israel, onto which China will probably add fuel to the fire, so basically Israel is damned if they do and damned if they dont.
Also as an escalation of an already illegal situation the UN will be forced to get involved which possibly means at a minimum international observers, possibly neutral and potentially largely ineffective peacekeepers which would in all likelihood benefit any extremist remnant/resistant groups more than Israel because Israel would be forced to follow the rules as a uniformed army whereas the will be able to hit and fade as they please.
So yes, Annexing while would seem like the quick fix has the potential to badly hurt Israel long term
-
I would love to see a One-State-Solution to the whole problem, but that would mean the end of a "Jewish Nation" altogether. Which wouldn't be that bad a thing (the last thing I want is for countries to be defined by their "Religion"), but given the historical circumstances I'd say no one's ready to make that bold step yet. All the muslim hard voices surrounding them haven't shown enough restraint and respect for Israel's existence for this to even being considered, let alone happen.
-
In realpolitik terms (i.e. the only ones that actually matter to Israel's survival as a state surrounded by hostile states), whether the counterattack has achieved any meaningful results is absolutely irrelevant.
Israel still exists because it has shown the propensity and the willingness to tell the folks that shoot at them to **** off. If the Israeli state ceases to respond to aggression, the fear is that the next aggressive move (or the next, or the next) will be a redux of the first few days of the Yom Kippur War. Israel cannot afford to take that risk simply because a few innocent folks got caught in the crossfire.
The idea that one must demonstrate strength to deter aggression gets thrown around a lot, but I don't recall ever seeing it backed up by anything. Actual strength and willingness to use it are of course what drives politics (on a grand scale at least), but that isn't a blank check to assume that use of force as a demonstration of those things is a good idea in any given situation.
What deters hostile neighbours from attacking Israel are Israel's actual defensive capabilities, and those would in no way change even if Israel never retaliated against rocket attacks from Gaza. It would not be a case of Israel proverbially laying down its arms and inviting everyone to take a bite, and it wouldn't result in its neighbours getting the idea that they'll be an easier target now.
-
What Joshua said, and then some. Ground forces are a lot better about not killing civilians per target hit. Maybe the airstrikes did a little to "soften up" the area to make it safer for the Israeli ground forces? I'd like to see some figures (or hell, guesses). And it's still clear that Israel is (or was, prior to the ground deployment) optimizing for minimal Israeli casualties, rather than minimal total casualties.
Your idealism is laudable. It would also get a lot more people killed.
I take it from your use of the "Realpolitik" argument that you do not wish to contest my assertion that the counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire, and thus did not actually save (m)any Israeli lives in the short term.
So this must be in reference to "the next aggressive move (or the next, or the next)". I am unconvinced. Use your imagination for a change. If you actually tried to construct a scenario wherein Israel shrugs off a failed attack and it doesn't bite them in the ass, you could probably do it.
Aside: Joshua, you kinda botched those quote tags; right now you've got me saying Sandwich's line.
-
I explicitly did not contest that assertion. I did not contest it because that assertion is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Israel cannot afford to gamble on the idea that not retaliating won't invite more attacks. It's a chance that any government in their situation would be stupid to take, because it risks tens of thousands of lives in exchange for a dozen or a hundred now.
Governments in hostile environments cannot afford to gamble with their existence if an alternative presents itself.
-
The stakes here are not 'a dozen or a hundred' lives. In civilian lives alone they are well into the hundreds already.
-
I explicitly did not contest that assertion. I did not contest it because that assertion is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Israel cannot afford to gamble on the idea that not retaliating won't invite more attacks. It's a chance that any government in their situation would be stupid to take, because it risks tens of thousands of lives in exchange for a dozen or a hundred now.
Governments in hostile environments cannot afford to gamble with their existence if an alternative presents itself.
That's all just gut feeling though, you can't really demonstrate that not retaliating would increase the chances of more attacks.
One could just as well argue that civilian casualties from retaliation worsens relations with friendly countries (or a part of Israel's own population), decreasing the aid they're willing to lend in time of crisis. Thus, retaliation would be gambling with their existence and lives in that case too.
I think your idea of the necessity of retaliation as a deterrent is terribly similar to the idea of "tough on crime" being a necessity. I mean sure, if you're soft on crime then obviously that will just invite more crime and thinking otherwise is really naive, right? Except that we know that's not really how it works; increasing deterrent doesn't lead to much less crime, nor does decreasing deterrent lead to much more crime. And I'm not comparing military retaliation and being tough on crime, but the reasoning behind them, which I think is simplistic and faulty in a similar manner in both cases.
EDIT: "changes" -> "chances"
-
Israel cannot afford to gamble on the idea that not retaliating won't invite more attacks. It's a chance that any government in their situation would be stupid to take, because it risks tens of thousands of lives in exchange for a dozen or a hundred now.
Governments in hostile environments cannot afford to gamble with their existence if an alternative presents itself.
No. I assert that retaliation is neither necessary nor sufficient as a measure to prevent future attacks, because future attacks cannot be prevented. The only sufficient means to prevent future attacks is to stop existing. If nothing else is sufficient, nothing else is necessary.
A more reasonable argument (and maybe the one you were thinking) would be that retaliation would reduce the likelihood of attacks within some implicit timeframe. In which case you are already dealing with uncertainties. It is no longer a "safe move" versus a "gamble".
I strongly suspect it is possible to construct a scenario (i.e. an initial course of action and subsequent decision-making strategy for Israel), wherein Israel doesn't counterattack, and wherein the probabilistically most likely Israeli death toll within some timeframe (PMLIDTWST) is not worse than the PMLIDTWST under "normal" behavior (i.e. with the airstrike).
Do you believe no such scenario exists?
-
Do you believe no such scenario exists?
You have developed a habit of taking an idealistic position, and then framing it in the terms of the discussion with the implication that because it would be reasonable in a perfect world, it must be reasonable in our decidedly imperfect world and should be treated as such.
There is a scenario in which Israel not retaliating against acts of war perpetuated by its neighbors would not result in Bad Things for Israel.
That scenario is not certain, nor do I (and obviously the government of the state of Israel) believe it to be particularly likely. The stakes in this decision are the lives of millions of people and Israel's existence as a sovereign nation. Taking the chance that non-retaliation would not be harmful is irresponsible in the highest order when confronted with the instability and history of the region.
EDIT: re: the "tough on crime" bit. The analogy falls apart when you realize that police officers do not spend every hour of every patrol day surrounded by lethal criminals that want the police force destroyed.
-
What really troubles me about your attitude, Scotty, is how the (grossly disproportionate) number of Palestinian civilian deaths don't even seem to enter into the equation for you. Those people, in your assessment, are simply an unfortunate cost of the apparently unshakeable imperative that Israel must retaliate against these attacks in this manner. You project the subject into big abstract assertions about war and realpolitik and on the way you completely lose sight of the children blown apart by shells.
-
I don't like that part one bit. I hate the entire situation that makes it happen. Hell, I don't even particularly like Israel, but it was mandated to exist by the UN and as a sovereign nation it maintains the ability and more importantly responsibility to defend its borders or provoke further depredation by neighbors that have sworn to destroy it.
The concept that Israel would stop bombing Gaza if Gaza would stop lobbing rockets in its general direction (and that if it didn't there'd be a real international incident) is something that Hamas is unable to contemplate due to its need to retain forceful government over Gaza. While the fault doesn't lie entirely with Hamas, Hamas sure as hell perpetuates the violence in a tangible manner and invites the retaliation without care for its own citizens.
-
You claim you hate it, sure, but it doesn't actually seem to have factored into your decision making. You claim Israel has no other option than to stamp out Hamas no matter how many innocent Palestinians to get in the way; but when you're asked why there are no other options, all you can do is make vague stipulations that this would fatally undermine Israel's sovereignty, backed up by calling anyone who disagrees 'naïve'.
-
I haven't claimed Israel has no other option than to stamp out Hamas in the slightest. I have, however, claimed that Hamas cannot afford to make peace with Israel because it would fatally undermine their powerbase. Hamas agrees. (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/interview-abu-marzouk-hamas-israel-fatah-reconciliation.html#)
I've stated (repeatedly) that Israel cannot suffer acts of war without response. Hamas is the tiny guy that tries to punch a trained boxer. He might even get a little bit of a hit in, but no one should be surprised when the boxer punches back. Instead we get "Oh no, that guy's poor teeth! If only that boxer would let the little guy punch him, this would all turn out better."
-
Yeah. Because some of us don't consider some axiom of revenge an adequate excuse for a heap of dead civilians.
-
Yeah. Because some of us don't consider some axiom of revenge an adequate excuse for a heap of dead civilians.
I feel like a number of people who espouse this argument miss the point spectacularly.
Hamas is firing live weapons at the civilian population centers of Israel with the intention of targeting the civilian population. Israel is firing live weapons at weapon infrastructure and Hamas leadership, militants, and logistics while taking as much care as possible (to the point of firing dud munitions first as a warning before live missiles go off) to avoid killing the civilians that the Hamas targets INTENTIONALLY surround themselves with.
I don't like all kinds of things that Israel does, and it think its behaviour is just as much a disgraceful impediment to a two-state solution - which is the only possible solution short of complete genocide for the forseeable future - as that of Hamas. That said, the entirety of what's happening in Gaza right this moment lies squarely on the shoulders of Hamas. They stop firing rockets this second, Israel will quit firing weapons at legitimate targets that also caused civilian deaths in Gaza - because if they don't, they lose all international support. Ending this is completely on Hamas.
And no, just ignoring the attacks on your civilian populace is not a viable option. For one, it greatly emboldens Hamas and increases their support level immensely - Hamas loses support during the peace process because they sabotage it, but so long as they're hitting Israeli population centers, they retain support. For two, the risk of civilian deaths in Israel, whom Hamas is explicitly targeting remains very real.
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable. And I'll go one further - all those assholes who think its a great idea to disrupt the Gaza blockade, to support the delivery of controlled goods into Gaza? Congratulations, you are the reason ground offensives become necessary, because that's one of the myriad of ways Hamas gets armed in the first place.
The problem is Western powers will always and rightly side with Israel when Hamas starts shooting at it, and this notion that Israel should stop defending itself, that restrictions on Gaza, etc are unnecessary just furthers that. It distracts from the problem. The moment Gaza ceases to be a violent threat to Israel is the moment international pressure suddenly lands on the Israelis to do something more reasonable with the Gaza strip. You want to see an end to the conflict between Israel and Gaza? Quit the counter-productive support of Hamas.
The 'heap of dead civilians' is the responsibility of the people perpetuating the conflict and locating their strike positions in places literally surrounded by civilians. What Israel is doing is not revenge, and like I said, no other country would be expected to act any differently in similar circumstances. You think Britain would sit on its hands if the pIRA suddenly went active, got its hands on a bunch of rockets, fortified a chunk of Northern Ireland, and start launching rockets at London? I don't bloody well think so.
-
Last time I talked with Palestinians (a doctor and a psychologist from the West Bank, who emigrated to France in the early 2000s, one having studied in prison after throwing rocks to Israeli soldiers when he was a teenager) they did not care that much about Israel.
They both recalled daily water service cuts, natural gas service cuts, fuel shortage, power grid failures, lack of medication... Also, obtaining any document (ID, passport) was a hassle, because it needed to go through both Palestinian and Israeli authorities (the later having a habit of blocking the delivery process).
Whether the IDF is actually using attrition warfare against the West Bank and Gaza to fight terrorism, or these issues are only caused by Palestinian long standing economic issues, I don't know. But as long as the IDF will control whatever commodities that go in and out of Palestinian territories, Palestinian people will blame Israel for this.
The only way I can see out of this war is the sanctuarization of some aspects of Palestinian territories economy. They need economic growth, but most importantly they need to know this growth cannot be halted by a political turnaround from any side.
It would mean that these goods and services (food, water, energy, construction materials, access to work -in Israel if needed-, health services, real estate) could not under any circumstances, be interrupted as retaliation to acts of terrorism. And of course, in order to work, it would have to be overseen by Israeli-Palestinian joint commissions. If these commissions were to be elected, both Israeli government and and Palestinian authority would have to back candidates who would not block the system. Control administrations recruiting both Israeli and Palestinian civil servants would also be needed.
After some time, in order to protect a system that restores a "normal" life style, Palestinians would start to take real actions against terrorism themselves, and later, hatred would start to fade away.
Now this is why such a solution would never work : on both sides, people working in common administration would be labelled traitors (even if it's just about water production or common vegetables market).
Some Palestinians would see the initiative as Israel trying to break their "resistance". Some Israelis would quickly realise that massive arrival of Palestinian workers in lower wages positions lowers global wages in the country. Then, they would also realise that the common administrations are robbing the country from its economic sovereignty. I'm not sure Israelis would be happy to participate to common administrations budget a lot more than Palestinians do (necessary to make it work) and have exactly the same political weight (necessary to keep peace). All I can imagine is Palestinians killing Palestinian terrorists, and Israeli governments going through waves of social panic and repression, from farmers to low-wage workers and colonists... Peace would not be cheap...
-
The concept that Israel would stop bombing Gaza if Gaza would stop lobbing rockets in its general direction (and that if it didn't there'd be a real international incident) is something that Hamas is unable to contemplate due to its need to retain forceful government over Gaza. While the fault doesn't lie entirely with Hamas, Hamas sure as hell perpetuates the violence in a tangible manner and invites the retaliation without care for its own citizens.
Hamas' recruiting power is dependent on Palestinians hating Israel. Take away the constant killing of Palestinian civilians, and you take away the constant supply of fresh Hamas soldiers. Retaliation is counterproductive.
-
The concept that Israel would stop bombing Gaza if Gaza would stop lobbing rockets in its general direction (and that if it didn't there'd be a real international incident) is something that Hamas is unable to contemplate due to its need to retain forceful government over Gaza. While the fault doesn't lie entirely with Hamas, Hamas sure as hell perpetuates the violence in a tangible manner and invites the retaliation without care for its own citizens.
Hamas' recruiting power is dependent on Palestinians hating Israel. Take away the constant killing of Palestinian civilians, and you take away the constant supply of fresh Hamas soldiers. Retaliation is counterproductive.
MP-Ryan just explained, with far more eloquence than I am capable of mustering the patience to express, exactly why this line of reasoning is utter bull****.
-
MP-Ryan just explained, with far more eloquence than I am capable of mustering the patience to express, exactly why this line of reasoning is utter bull****.
No he hasn't, no it's not, and calling my line of reasoning "utter bull****" is dangerously close to a personal attack.
And no, just ignoring the attacks on your civilian populace is not a viable option. For one, it greatly emboldens Hamas and increases their support level immensely - Hamas loses support during the peace process because they sabotage it, but so long as they're hitting Israeli population centers, they retain support. For two, the risk of civilian deaths in Israel, whom Hamas is explicitly targeting remains very real.
Hamas also gains support when Israel bombs stuff. If Israel stops bombing stuff, support for Hamas can only decrease. The Iron Dome is working great, and Israel can afford those casualties. Yes I just said that. The casualties Israel would sustain in the ~15 years it takes for would-be Hamas recruits to realize "hey, Israel stopped killing us", would be far less than the total casualties both sides would sustain if they keep at this for another ~70 years (and possibly less than the Israeli casualties alone).
-
I called your line of reasoning bull****. That's very clearly arguing the position, not the person.
What you either do not understand the significance of or refuse to accept the ridiculousness inherent to the course of action is that you are essentially advocating that Israel allow Hamas to kill its citizens with impunity for as long as it takes Hamas to get bored. That is utterly unacceptable, on more levels than I care to name.
-
MP-Ryan just explained, with far more eloquence than I am capable of mustering the patience to express, exactly why this line of reasoning is utter bull****.
No he hasn't, no it's not, and calling my line of reasoning "utter bull****" is dangerously close to a personal attack.
Attacking someone's arguments does not equate to attacking the person making them.
The Iron Dome is working great, and Israel can afford those casualties. Yes I just said that.
Now THIS is utter bull****. One of the most fundamental duties of any government is to protect its citizenry from external threats. As has been repeatedly stated in this thread, Hamas is actively targeting Israeli civilians with rocket attacks. Israel is absolutely right to hold a zero-tolerance policy towards such strikes, as any country would be. In contrast, Hamas is actively putting its own citizenry in harm's way by placing their missile sites in crowded civilian areas.
-
MP-Ryan just explained, with far more eloquence than I am capable of mustering the patience to express, exactly why this line of reasoning is utter bull****.
No he hasn't, no it's not, and calling my line of reasoning "utter bull****" is dangerously close to a personal attack.
And no, just ignoring the attacks on your civilian populace is not a viable option. For one, it greatly emboldens Hamas and increases their support level immensely - Hamas loses support during the peace process because they sabotage it, but so long as they're hitting Israeli population centers, they retain support. For two, the risk of civilian deaths in Israel, whom Hamas is explicitly targeting remains very real.
Hamas also gains support when Israel bombs stuff. If Israel stops bombing stuff, support for Hamas can only decrease. The Iron Dome is working great, and Israel can afford those casualties. Yes I just said that. The casualties Israel would sustain in the ~15 years it takes for would-be Hamas recruits to realize "hey, Israel stopped killing us", would be far less than the total casualties both sides would sustain if they keep at this for another ~70 years (and possibly less than the Israeli casualties alone).
No, that line of reasoning is utter bull****. You know what happens when a government fails to respond to hostility? Look at Iraq. Sectarian bickering has prevented any real government or military action to protect northern Iraq and now they'll be lucky if they can prevent ISIL from gaining further ground even with the US, Iran, and Russia throwing equipment at them. And they're still weeks away from actually solving the blocking issues with parliament, not to mention their actual military. With Israel there's this whole ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. If retaliatory air strikes are what was causing Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel, there never would've been rocket attacks to begin with. I'm not saying Israel would do as poorly against incursions as Iraq, but a "do nothing" retaliation policy would not bring the conflict any closer to conclusion. The animosity Palestinians feel towards Israelis won't go away even if Israel decides to trust Hamas and completely open up the closed areas.
The only way for this situation to end without more horrible bloodshed and general humanitarian catastrophes is if both the Palestinian authorities and Israel are willing to make fundamental diplomatic compromises.
-
And, as previously pointed out, that isn't going to happen (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/interview-abu-marzouk-hamas-israel-fatah-reconciliation.html#). Until then, the only rational response Israel can realistically muster without either compromising its very purpose as a state entity is to continue to retaliate against rocket attacks.
-
Fine, let me call your argument in some thread "utter bull****" and see how you like it.
Did none of you read the sentence after "Yes I just said that"?
The casualties Israel would sustain in the ~15 years it takes for would-be Hamas recruits to realize "hey, Israel stopped killing us", would be far less than the total casualties both sides would sustain if they keep at this for another ~70 years (and possibly less than the Israeli casualties alone).
advocating that Israel allow Hamas to kill its citizens with impunity for as long as it takes Hamas to get bored.
This is where all the pieces of my argument come together.
- Hamas didn't kill any Israelis. You want to count that one guy who had a heart attack? Fine. Idgaf.
- The thing you repeatedly declined to contest: The counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire.
- Therefore not counterattacking would not significantly increase Hamas' kill count.
- Therefore the number of Israeli casualties over a ~15 year period will be "small".
- Regardless of how large either number is, the number of Israeli casualties over a ~70 year period will be greater than the number of Israeli casualties over a ~15 year period.
Let that last one sink in. Israel is going to get more Israelis killed by counterattacking than would have been killed otherwise.
Disagree with that? Well then you should've contested my earlier claim about the short-term efficacy of the counterattacks.
-
I love the parts of this conversation where you outright ignore everything I've said for the last two pages based purely on numbers of rockets.
I'll say it again: the number of rockets fired is totally irrelevant. Absolutely, completely, totally, wholly irrelevant. Even leaving aside the initial kidnapping and murder incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers) that touched off this entire incident, the number of Israeli deaths to date is similarly irrelevent.
You are advocating that a sovereign nation do nothing when faced by constant, dedicated, deliberate, and malicious bombardment of the population within its borders.
**** that.
What you continually fail to grasp is that I'm not arguing numbers, here, and neither is MP-Ryan. We're arguing principle, and the principle of the situation is that a state cannot allow its citizens to come to harm through inaction. That is the entire reason for a state to exist. Israel can no more not respond to these rocket attacks than you can decide not to flinch after getting punched in the fact, because flinching means you're a pussy and deserve to get punched again.
If you don't understand how the numbers are totally ****ing worthless here, there's nothing to gain from further discussion.
-
So you acknowledge that your "principles" dictate that the scenario with more Israeli deaths is preferable to the one with less?
I mean, if you really don't care about those numbers, then you're right, there's nothing to gain from further discussion. And part of me hopes you'll announce that opinion over a megaphone whilst standing in the parking lot of the ADL.
-
That's what I said, yes. The world is an ugly, stupid place. It's not that I don't care (and rather resent the insinuation that I don't), it's that I recognize that individual lives are less important than matters of national survival.
This is a classic case of short term gain versus long term suffering. You advocate short-term (70 years) gain. I'm advocating the survival of a state and the millions of people in it. If you feel like being crude about it, it's also a case of the ends justifying the means.
And all of this dances around one of the most important issues that you apparently don't understand: self-defense. I'll quote MP-Ryan's far more eloquent discourse on the subject, in case you glossed over or skimmed it on your way to making your point:
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable. And I'll go one further - all those assholes who think its a great idea to disrupt the Gaza blockade, to support the delivery of controlled goods into Gaza? Congratulations, you are the reason ground offensives become necessary, because that's one of the myriad of ways Hamas gets armed in the first place.
Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel. It's victim blaming at the national level, and it's complete and utter bull****.
-
That's what I said, yes. The world is an ugly, stupid place. It's not that I don't care (and rather resent the insinuation that I don't), it's that I recognize that individual lives are less important than matters of national survival.
That is a matter of opinion, and one I disagree with. Furthermore I have asserted (and maintain) that the survival of the state of Israel would not be jeopardized by not retaliating.
This is a classic case of short term gain versus long term suffering. You advocate short-term (70 years) gain. I'm advocating the survival of a state and the millions of people in it. If you feel like being crude about it, it's also a case of the ends justifying the means.
All people will eventually die, and all nations will eventually fall. The dissolution or annexation of a nation is not synonymous with the death of its inhabitants.
You have repeatedly asserted that not retaliating = doom. Presumably that means sooner, since it's going to fall eventually anyway. Nonetheless, this has been contested multiple times, both by myself and zookeeper.
And all of this dances around one of the most important issues that you apparently don't understand: self-defense.
It's not "self defense" if it's not "defense", and practically every claim I've made in this thread has been to that effect. It is "defense" in name only. No lives are saved, no people are protected. It is not "defense" in the immediate short term, nor the ~15 years it would take for Hamas to "get bored", nor the ~70 years or however long it would take for the conflict to end on its own. If you're talking about "self-defense" in the indefinite far future, see above.
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable.
Is Israel's behavior reasonable? It's reasonable in the sense that I can understand it; it's instinctive. But as I have demonstrated (with no contest) it's also profoundly stupid, because it kills more Israelis than it saves.
To summarize:- No, it is not self defense.
- No, nothing would be jeopardized if Israel refrained from retaliating.
-
What you fundamentally fail to graps is that Hamas' recruitment and support is NOT based on the number of civilians killed in Gaza by Israeli attacks. Read the polls; listen to the interviews - so long as Hamas is perceived to be hitting Israel, they win. They distract from the issue that they cannot support their own people because their terrorism - and that, without invoking the stupidity around the word since 9/1 but rather its traditional definition, is precisely what it is - actually prevents Gaza from receiving basic goods, services, and an economy. Every rocket that Hamas lands into Israeli territory is a recruitment poster, and a perpetuation of the conflict. Israel cannot lift the blockade of Gaza until the rocket attacks stop because that will simply provide them with an endless source of munitions; similarly, Hamas cannot stop the rocket attacks permanently because doing so leads to their political demise because Gaza can be opened to commerce. Furthermore, a majority of Gazans *still* want Hamas gone - and the only way that's going to happen in the near future is through a military stomping of Hamas by Israel with the PA left to walk back in afterward and restore order and services to the Gaza Strip, because Hamas is not going to stop - they hold the Gaza strip at the muzzle of a gun and have since 2007.
Israel ignoring the rocket attacks targeted to its civilian population is a losing strategy in both the short and the long term; it makes a successful peace process less likely, not more. This may change if and when the Iron Dome program can be fully expanded to protect the entirety of Israel's civilian population and renders the rocket attacks completely ineffectual. Until then, they HAVE to respond they have both a strategic interest in seeing the success of a two-state solution, and a moral obligation in protecting their citizenry in the short term, neither of which is served by just letting Hamas fire at them at will.
All of this further belies the matter that, to repeat, no other country on Earth would be expected to 'just take it.' I'm sure you would feel very, very differently if your city of civilians was under sudden rocket attack from a neighboring listed terrorist organization. To reiterate: a listed terrorist organization is firing live weapons at civilian population centers with intent to do as much damage and kill as many people as possible. No one should be OK with this, or advocating that the governing body responsible for those civilian population centers just ignore it. It is a fundamental violation of the rules of war and human rights to intentionally target civilians. The fact that Israel hits civilians as a consequence of Hamas' logistical positions is bad enough; Hamas is going after civilians and not military targets ON PURPOSE.
-
That's what I said, yes. The world is an ugly, stupid place. It's not that I don't care (and rather resent the insinuation that I don't), it's that I recognize that individual lives are less important than matters of national survival.
That is a matter of opinion, and one I disagree with. Furthermore I have asserted (and maintain) that the survival of the state of Israel would not be jeopardized by not retaliating.
You are allowed to think this because your country or state or county or town does not experience constant threat of rocket bombardment, hostile invasion, and massive upheaval on a weekly basis. Your government is stable, your borders are secure, and your neighbors have not sworn to eradicate everything you stand for.
You consistently ignore the political and geographical realities of the situation. Israel is beset on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon) all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) sides (http://) by openly hostile entities that have stated intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War) and determination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) to launch massive attacks (http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/northernfront.asp) and invasions (http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/egypt.asp) simply because it exists. All this in addition to prolonged, repeated, and extensive terrorist campaigns, rocket attacks, and mortar attacks.
And you have the gall to say that Israel should just sit there and let the rocket and mortar attacks happen? MP-Ryan and myself have mentioned several (several) times that no one else in the world would be criticized for retaliating, and further that retaliating is the duty of any state that wants to protect its citizens. It's a complex situation. Clearly that's not quite sinking in.
I do not contest that lack of retaliation would lead to less Israeli deaths by way of the retaliatory operations.
I declare complete and utter bull**** that there's nothing lost from surrendering the initiate to retaliate.
Israel still exists because it projects force. When it ceases to project force, it will cease to exist. That is not a reasonable course of action for Israel to take, because it directly contravenes every good bit of sense that a governing body could exercise.
Your solution is morally reprehensible.
-
If my strategy is actually capable of doing what it's supposed to, minimizing Israeli casualties, then none of that other stuff matters.
MP-Ryan has finally made an argument that suggests a possible reason why my strategy would not work.
You consistently ignore the political and geographical realities of the situation. Israel is beset on all sides by openly hostile entities that have stated intent and determination to launch massive attacks and invasions simply because it exists. All this in addition to prolonged, repeated, and extensive terrorist campaigns, rocket attacks, and mortar attacks.
If my strategy works, my strategy works. You made no indication that these "geopolitical realities" have any bearing on whether my strategy would work.
And you have the gall to say that Israel should just sit there and let the rocket and mortar attacks happen? MP-Ryan and myself have mentioned several (several) times that no one else in the world would be criticized for retaliating, and further that retaliating is the duty of any state that wants to protect its citizens. It's a complex situation. Clearly that's not quite sinking in.
If my strategy works, my strategy works, and disproves your claim about protecting its citizens. Criticism has nothing to do with it.
I declare complete and utter bull**** that there's nothing lost from surrendering the initiate to retaliate.
Surrendering the what now? Response to best guess: I never said anything about "Israel may not defend itself", I said what it's been doing is defense in name only.
Your solution is morally reprehensible.
If my strategy works, my strategy works. It only seems morally reprehensible to you because you do not think it would work, in which case you should have damn well argued you didn't think it would work. But you repeatedly refused to contest any of the points I made in support of it working, except for your constant repetition of your initial claim that "not retaliating = doom", which I contested multiple times.
I'm going to bed.
-
Hamas didn't kill any Israelis. You want to count that one guy who had a heart attack? Fine. Idgaf.
Actually, an israeli civilian was killed by mortar fire a few days later.
Have you considered the possibility that your strategy may mean that Hamas can develop more powerfull missiles? These current versions are rather ineffective, but they are fired at Israel with the intent to kill.
-
On a different but related tangent :
http://gizmodo.com/israels-adding-lasers-to-its-iron-dome-defenses-1505223034
Called Iron Beam
Edit:
And, fwiw (Rocket launch sites) :
Check out @ IDFSpokesperson's Tweet: https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/491066898641985536
Edit2: http://israelhasbeenrocketfreefor.com/ (Rocket count up timer that resets with every Rocket attack)
-
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable.
Yes, they would be! If Estonia was very unstable and some part of its government decided to start launching rockets into Finland (which is where I live), with about one in thousand rockets resulting in a finnish civilian dying, then yes, absolutely we should ignore it rather than airstrike them back if doing so would be practically guaranteed to result in a much greater number of estonian civilian casualties. Dogma is irrelevant, consequences of one's actions less so.
-
Cycle of violence must be broken if there is to be any hope of peace, and Israel as self-proclaimed "more civilised" and more responsible party with overwhelming force and organised army is the one that is much better suited to break it first. Israeli response is doing the exact opposite, it is inflaming the conflict and at the same time turning public opinion everywhere against them. I am convinced that this will result in much more victims, on both sides, than if Israel just didnt respond at all. I agree with zookeeper, there is a threshold where waging war is certainly a good response, and those rocket attacks have not yet crossed it.
Israel still exists because it projects force. When it ceases to project force, it will cease to exist.
This has everything to do with responses to actually existential threats and nothing to do with current situation. If Israel did not respond to the rain of amateur rockets, not only would their existence not be endangered in any way whatsoever, it may actually help them by turning the public opinion globally in their favor and over time reducing the support hamas has. And they can always retaliate with great force when the situation actually warrants it, not after single civilian death.
Every rocket that Hamas lands into Israeli territory is a recruitment poster, and a perpetuation of the conflict.
Every civilian death is a hundred times better recruitment poster than that.
-
What you fundamentally fail to graps is that Hamas' recruitment and support is NOT based on the number of civilians killed in Gaza by Israeli attacks. Read the polls; listen to the interviews - so long as Hamas is perceived to be hitting Israel, they win.
This is a very wrong interpretation of the events and opinions. Hamas is perceived to be hitting a hated enemy and that's what they use as recruitment. But what makes Palestinian hate the Israelis? What is the driving fuel of this hatred? Isn't this hatred fueled by the total blockade empoverishing them to the absolutely miserable state they are in? Isn't this hatred being confirmed daily by the pictures of dead babies in their territory? The moment you say "But Israel is a civilized country, we are humanists, we are this and that" they point to the children casualties and the discussion is immediately moot.
I heard Netanyahu say something remarkably stupid the other day, that these dead babies are "telegenically" used by Hamas. It's not stupid per se, the sentence. I think it's absolutely correct. The very very very stupid thing about this sentence is the obvious come back that no reporter seems to have the balls to say to him: Then why the **** are you delivering them these photos? Why the **** are you granting them victory after victory?
Israelis may kill dozens of Hamas operatives, if not hundreds. It's still a victory for them: They'll have effectively done the best recruiting photos for the past ten years, and will have thousands knocking on their doors asking "What can I do to fight back at those baby murderers?"
All of this further belies the matter that, to repeat, no other country on Earth would be expected to 'just take it.' I'm sure you would feel very, very differently if your city of civilians was under sudden rocket attack from a neighboring listed terrorist organization.
See NRA, see ETA. Had the UK bombed Northern Ireland to destroy the NRA all that territory would be a similar quagmire. Mind, the NRA wasn't using innefectual rockets against UK territories, they actually attempted to kill Tatcher and almost succeeded at one point, they did terrible killings and so on.
The fact that Israel hits civilians as a consequence of Hamas' logistical positions is bad enough; Hamas is going after civilians and not military targets ON PURPOSE.
I feel the Israeli tears over Palestinian dead babies. And I almost mean it without sarcasm. But really, between Israeli tears and dead palestinian babies, I think I can easily decide where most of my sympathy lies.
-
IRA, not NRA. I would note that the peace process in NI would never have been able to proceed if the British government had insisted on stamping out and prosecuting the IRA.
-
This is a very wrong interpretation of the events and opinions. Hamas is perceived to be hitting a hated enemy and that's what they use as recruitment. But what makes Palestinian hate the Israelis? What is the driving fuel of this hatred? Isn't this hatred fueled by the total blockade empoverishing them to the absolutely miserable state they are in? Isn't this hatred being confirmed daily by the pictures of dead babies in their territory? The moment you say "But Israel is a civilized country, we are humanists, we are this and that" they point to the children casualties and the discussion is immediately moot.
You'll note that I covered that. Israel could do a lot to damage Hamas long-term by ending the blockade immediately. Unfortunately, that would also allow Hamas to do a lot of damage to Israel's civilian population centers in the short term. Ending the blockade is not an option at this point. Similarly, the pictures of dead children and civilians are horrifying, but large chunks of Gaza still DON'T support Hamas now anyway - latest independent polls show a majority of Gazans want Hamas out. They maintain power at the point of a gun; Israel striking back against rocket positions makes little difference to the situation on the ground.
Western sentiment thinks the photos of civilian casualties are benefiting Hamas, but the public opinion being expressed in Gaza does not reflect that. Those who support Hamas do it because they fundamentally hate and want to hit at Israel - you'll note that, as in the past, this start with rockets flying out of Gaza (actually, it started with 3 dead Israeli teenagers, which is similar anyway), not shots fired into it. Those people support Hamas no matter what. However, the bulk of Gazans don't - they just have no means to get rid of Hamas. Dropping the blockade will make that situation worse, not better, as Hamas will be better able to arm itself against Israel and the Gazan population.
See NRA, see ETA. Had the UK bombed Northern Ireland to destroy the NRA all that territory would be a similar quagmire. Mind, the NRA wasn't using innefectual rockets against UK territories, they actually attempted to kill Tatcher and almost succeeded at one point, they did terrible killings and so on.
And here is the point in the thread where everyone fails to recognize the differences between Northern Ireland and Gaza.
Britain had a fortified military presence in Northern Ireland, where the pIRA was basically based. It was, for all intents and purposes, an occupied territory. It was similar in many ways to Gaza, pre-2005. That is no longer the case. The reason I posed the hypothetical 'if' previously was in order to draw the comparison, as it was otherwise not applicable. It's also further distanced by the fact that the pIRA never used distance weapons from civilian population centers to target civilian population centers to target civilian population centers - their primary weapons of choice were the gun and the bomb, both of which were deployed surreptitiously to cause carnage. There were no installations to hit with military ordinance and, even more unlike Gaza, Britain already had a military presence in Northern Ireland and was effectively able to deploy a number of specialty units (22 SAS among them) to hunt down specific individuals who were hiding in a territory that was not completely hostile to the British presence. The situation is completely unlike that with Gaza, which is why I used a completely hypothetical scenario in the first place.
I feel the Israeli tears over Palestinian dead babies. And I almost mean it without sarcasm. But really, between Israeli tears and dead palestinian babies, I think I can easily decide where most of my sympathy lies.
So can I. The difference is I recognize the reality that Israel has no other alternative other than to hit back, because the longer Hamas can fling rockets into Israel, the longer this conflict will continue. Israel already has agreed to a ceasefire.... guess who hasn't?
-
IRA, not NRA. I would note that the peace process in NI would never have been able to proceed if the British government had insisted on stamping out and prosecuting the IRA.
1. See my reply to Luis.
2. The conflict in Northern Ireland had fundamentally different causes, effects, and solutions than that in Gaza. The Peace process there worked with the power-sharing agreement because the conflict was fundamentally about the historical lack of power of the Catholic political population in the North. Even the pIRA didn't advocate against Britain's right to exist.
-
Well if you are going to argue that other examples are not quite like Gaza so they don't work, then I'll argue that you can't make the move of "there is no other country that under the same circumstances wouldn't behave in the same way", because philosophically speaking, the only country who could ever be "that analogous" would be Israel itself and nothing else entirely, so the counterfactual just doesn't work.
You say that we in the west are not well informed about palestinian's actual drives because while we think it's the rockets and the killings which are making the people support Hamas, it's actually their own particular racist hatred towards Israel. My problem with this whole argument is that it is not only borderline racist (almost saying things like "These palestinians are just hateful people"), it's that it misses the whole point of the very "racist" concept at all. People are always racist when they perceive the Other as a Problem. This "Problem" may well be manufactured (like the "Jew Problem" in nazi Germany), or it could be due to a real issue (like the pervasive racism of english people towards the germans post-war). Thing is, that even if this is a case where this "Problem" is a manufactured one through islamofascist propaganda against the "Jews" and so on, the worst thing the Israel government can ever do is to prove them right and empirically confirm to them the things they are brainwashed in, that these are people who will kill children, who will endlessly oppress palestinians, etc.
However, I don't think this is without "issue". The fact that this territory is de facto controlled by Israel, blockaded, sieged, and has engaged in what looks like straight out of the gut cowboy revenge does indeed transcend this "Problem" from an ideological brainwashing towards something more.
The only possible route for Israel to get out of this quagmire is to utterly destroy this image they have on the palestinian heads. It is possible that this could happen "on its own", with the big majority of Gaza pop saying "enough is enough" and end Hamas, etc., but I don't bet on this.
-
It's like you didn't even read my last 3 posts. Or you did and failed to understand them. Try again. I have previously addressed every issue you've brought up.
Read the independent qualitative opinion poll information. Hamas' support in Gaza is limited to less than half the population and contingent not on Israel's attacks on Gaza, but rather Hamas' ability to rain rockets on Israel and distract from the fact that Hamas' attacks are why the blockade, which cripples the Gazan economy, exists to begin with.
-
You know, "addressed" doesn't mean "successfully argued". The difference between us is not the assessment of the situation, but your lack of confidence in any other solution than "Bomb bomb bomb palestine". If we look at this in purely pragmatical rationality, this operation was both unnecessary, disproportionate (one dead israeli, therefore lets kill a dozen terrorists plus some hundreds of innocent civilians?), great stuff for any Hamas propaganda, and probably, just probably, extremely inneficient.
The only way they can prove me wrong is if they are able to decapitate the leadership of Hamas. In this point, I am extremely radical, so to speak. If Israel is doing this, they should do it to the bitter end and erradicate every single Hamas cell in existence within Gaza. Either they should have done the moral right thing and "take it", or they should do the most "cruel" thing and cleanse the place of that shenanigan. Anything in between will only prolong this quagmire.
-
I'll quote MP-Ryan's far more eloquent discourse on the subject...
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable. And I'll go one further - all those assholes who think its a great idea to disrupt the Gaza blockade, to support the delivery of controlled goods into Gaza? Congratulations, you are the reason ground offensives become necessary, because that's one of the myriad of ways Hamas gets armed in the first place.
Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel. It's victim blaming at the national level, and it's complete and utter bull****.
So much this. The negative response from the UN and the "Can't we just get along?" attitude of President Obama make me ashamed of my government (which I was already, but...). Israel is the most stable and safest nation in an unstable and vital part of the globe, and now we're leaving them hanging?
Best hopes and prayers to you, Sandwich.
-
I don't have a lack of confidence in any other solution than bombing the Gaza strip. I rather believe that Israel must continue to respond militarily to rocket attacks until Hamas stops shooting them at civilian population centers. The second that happens, Israel needs to stop shooting back and pull back all forces it has in Gaza. Israel's military action is only justified so long as it is conducted in a way that prevents attacks on Israel and minimizes Gazan civilian deaths to the greatest possible extent.
Only after these conditions are achieved can progress toward the only real solutuion - the two-state solution - proceed. That process will not proceed and will in fact be harshly derailed if Israel ceases to respond to Hamas' continual attacks on its soil and citizenry. So long as Hamas is able to strike at Israel, there is no impetus for the negotiations to continue concerning the Gaza strip as Hamas retains both its control and its raison d'etre. Hamas is weakened every time they fire on Israel, provoke a response, and then take a ceasefire - shifts in public opinion in Gaza since 2005 have shown that admirably. However, the longer they can fire on Israel, the more control they temporarily maintain. Right now, a majority of Gazans want the PA to oust Hamas, but that can't happen so long as they're attacking Israel.
The unfortunate reality of all this is that, because Hamas' tactic is to surround their firing points and logistics with civilians, ordinary Gazans die in the response, and Hamas both knows that and works that angle for international pressure against Israel in the hopes that the Israelis will be forced to just sit back and take the constant rocket fire, further solidying Hamas' position among the minority of Gazans who do support them and intimidating the majority who do not.
Not responding to the rocket attacks is not an option for Israel until such time that they can be completely prevented, or completely neutralized (via Iron Dome, etc) because it hinders the long-term two-state solution. I don't have unwavering support for Israel here; I'm being pragmatic.
-
Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel.
(yes I know it was a quote within a quote, but you reiterated it emphatically)
This assertion amounts to "you are only blaming Israel because they're Israel", aka "because you don't like them". I have told you why I am criticizing Israel, and the reasons I gave were clearly not that. Yet you continue to repeat this claim ascribing some motivation for my "blaming" Israel other than the one which I explicitly stated.
I will now explicitly state that "because they're Israel" or "because I don't like them" is not my motivation for criticizing Israel. If you repeat this claim again, you are calling me a liar, and I will not stand for that.
Note: "I" = succinct version of "myself and others in this thread who have expressed similar criticisms of Israel's recent behavior"; the same goes for other first person pronouns, verb conjugations, etc..
-
The two state solution has been put on hold ever since the Palestinian Authority agreed they should speak to Hamas (as the elected government of the Gaza strip) regarding this issue and Netanyahu absolutely refused to take part on any of it. So for that "two state solution" to take a new hold you need to take Hamas down, either politically (let the Gaza people know and vote against them) or militarily (annihilate them).
My heart goes for the political solution that is, at this time, obsolete. It's now a race between Hamas' global political pressure against Israel's attacks and the Israel military's ability to erradicate Hamas. I don't think the Israelis will succeed, the political pressure is mounting and they will back off (always saying that it was a victory, they have achieved their objectives, etc.), and whether or not it will be a de facto victory will only be measured in the months and years to come when we are able to know if Hamas got stronger or weaker with all this. My guess? This was a tactical blunder of massive proportions and Hamas is going to get stronger, not weaker.
Using a flawed analogy, it reminds me like a very sharp chess move variation, wherein you are in trouble, but you calculate some ten or twelve moves ahead, you know you'll be sacrificing a rook or something very valuable but you are getting a ****ton of tactical goods back, and go for it. Except you haven't got the time to actually calculate everything and it becomes a race between what you think you'll get and what your opponent is able to do to defend itself from your sharp attack long enough to keep your sacrifice as an advantage.
Sometimes it works. I look at the situation and I say "I have a baad feeling about this".
-
(actually, it started with 3 dead Israeli teenagers, which is similar anyway),
This assumes that this action was carried out by Hamas, which is unconfirmed (and Hamas catagorically denies). Also note that it took place in the west bank, not Gaza (yes, I also regurarely mix up the two). Lastly, note operation Brother's Keeper. Some would say that it started with that (I personally think that Hamas just needs an excuse to fire missiles, but Brother's Keeper did hand them one).
-
I think it's sufficient to say that Hamas wanted war and Israel didn't handle it well. Perhaps something could be done, but it's likely they'd have found another excuse. That's kind of irrelevant, though. In reality, it all started with the British giving Jews land in the area, so Israel is located there and not, say, in Poland or India. The region was unstable even then (in no small part thanks to the same Brits stirring Arabs up against the Ottoman Empire...), so it was either a bone-headed or downright malicious decision to settle Jews there, of all places. I know, "Holy Land" and all, but it's hardly surprising they were not very welcome there, especially after deporting a large amount of Palestinians from their land.
So for that "two state solution" to take a new hold you need to take Hamas down, either politically (let the Gaza people know and vote against them) or militarily (annihilate them).
Do not dismiss the political solution so quickly. IIRC, Hamas had denied the people of the Gaza strip even a chance to vote against them. A sound move on their part, considering how bad are they at actually running the place. Perhaps if they were placed in a situation in which they'd have to hold free elections (for instance, by the same global pressure that keeps Israel from wiping them out), they'd lose and degenerate into guerillas again. Assuming they don't bully the voters into voting for them, which such groups have been known to do.
-
I had a whole bunch of replies written up here to posts on page 4 and 5, but then I kept reading and saw that everything I was saying had basically already been said.
In response to the theories that if we stop giving them reason to hate us (airstrikes, blockades, etc), they'll stop hating us, I have to point out that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc (all of whom definitely hate Israel - at least, the leadership does) all have one major thing in common - (radical?) Islam. I know, I know, it's not very PC to point a finger at a religion, but there you have it. Muslims all over the Middle-East are being taught Jew-hatred from the Koran. Whether that's a perversion of what the Koran actually says or not is irrelevant to my point - it's the people's perception of their religion's teachings that is at the core of their hatred of the Jews. No amount of embargo-lifting, airstrike-halting, or land-concessioning is going to change that core religious belief.
Thankfully, the Palestinians who are getting medical treatment in Israeli hospitals - heart surgeries, etc - are witnessing firsthand that Jews do not really drink the blood of Muslims, that they don't really have Devil tails, etc. Small victories...
-
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable.
Yes, they would be! If Estonia was very unstable and some part of its government decided to start launching rockets into Finland (which is where I live), with about one in thousand rockets resulting in a finnish civilian dying, then yes, absolutely we should ignore it rather than airstrike them back if doing so would be practically guaranteed to result in a much greater number of estonian civilian casualties. Dogma is irrelevant, consequences of one's actions less so.
This seems completely ridiculous. If a foreign terrorist organization was actively killing civilians in my country, I'd expect the government to act against them immediately, if not sooner. And if they didn't, they should be removed from power yesterday.
-
That's because you understand part of the social contract of nations is to provide communal security and support those inside it, and if an outside force is acting against those inside the nation, the nation is bound by said contract to protect those within it, even to the detriment of those outside it. A nation that ignores part of the social contract binding it does so at its own peril.
-
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable.
Yes, they would be! If Estonia was very unstable and some part of its government decided to start launching rockets into Finland (which is where I live), with about one in thousand rockets resulting in a finnish civilian dying, then yes, absolutely we should ignore it rather than airstrike them back if doing so would be practically guaranteed to result in a much greater number of estonian civilian casualties. Dogma is irrelevant, consequences of one's actions less so.
This seems completely ridiculous. If a foreign terrorist organization was actively killing civilians in my country, I'd expect the government to act against them immediately, if not sooner. And if they didn't, they should be removed from power yesterday.
It depends on the way in which they act against them. Obviously. That's what most of this thread is about. No one thinks that any kind of acting against terrorists killing civilians is okay.
Anyway... don't you think it would be even more ridiculous if, say, my government airstriked you because a terrorist organization in your country is killing civilians in my country? I think it would be much more ridiculous than my government choosing to not airstrike at all if they can't airstrike the terrorists without also airstriking you.
-
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable.
Yes, they would be! If Estonia was very unstable and some part of its government decided to start launching rockets into Finland (which is where I live), with about one in thousand rockets resulting in a finnish civilian dying, then yes, absolutely we should ignore it rather than airstrike them back if doing so would be practically guaranteed to result in a much greater number of estonian civilian casualties. Dogma is irrelevant, consequences of one's actions less so.
This seems completely ridiculous. If a foreign terrorist organization was actively killing civilians in my country, I'd expect the government to act against them immediately, if not sooner. And if they didn't, they should be removed from power yesterday.
I actually think it's very noble.
Some people I think don't see national boundaries and us and them, they just see dead innocents, and want the fewest number of dead innocents, regardless of where those innocents are dying. The real test of those people would be if they were in the kill zone, would they be happy to remain in the kill zone to keep the overall number of human lives lost down? And it seems he is saying yes.
If the answer is truly yes, I consider them to be morally superior to me, as I would selfishly want the risk removed from me. In the end, I would be a coward, promoting death of additional innocents elsewhere in order to keep myself safe, despite the actual odds of my death being minimal. Better 100 deaths over there than 1 death over here, right? No. Just safer for you and me. And I can't blame other people for thinking that way when I think the same. But that's what it comes down to at the end of the day, selfishness and self-preservation. But anyone who would truly rather bear the risk in order that the least human innocents die, you're better than me.
Better for us to go over to Iraq and Afghanistan and see people slaughtered well into 6 digits than to see people die in probably 3 digits over here (UK), 4 at the most, right? 5 at the very most in America. No. It's just selfish. Because we want to live, so we let them die. How many of them die in order to save one of us? Which is of greater value, one of us, or however many of them die to preserve that one of us?
Some people can willingly, knowingly choose to go to their own death in order to save lives, strangers' lives, over escaping and letting those people die. I couldn't do it, and I consider myself inferior to someone who could.
-
Hypothetical scenario with two fictitious factions, "you" and "somebody else"
The civilian death tolls start at: 1-you, 0-somebody else
You have two possible options.
A: the civilian death tolls increase to: 2-you, 0-somebody else
or
B: the civilian death tolls increase to: 1-you, 200-somebody else
Which option do you choose?
"But Aardwolf, that's a huge oversimplification!"
Somewhat.
-
If you want to send the clear message to your people that you value them less than some other random asshole's people, you pick A.
If you recognize how the social contract works, you pick B.
-
Utilitarianism with all people valued equally > your narrow interpretation of "the social contract"
-
Hypothetical scenario with two fictitious factions, "you" and "somebody else"
The civilian death tolls start at: 1-you, 0-somebody else
You have two possible options.
A: the civilian death tolls increase to: 2-you, 0-somebody else
or
B: the civilian death tolls increase to: 1-you, 200-somebody else
Which option do you choose?
How about if you is literally you. Your own death vs. the lives of X number of strangers.
Would you let 10 people die to stay alive? 100? 1,000? 10,000?
If you want to send the clear message to your people that you value them less than some other random asshole's people, you pick A.
If you recognize how the social contract works, you pick B.
Value them equally to the other person's people is what it would mean, not less.
-
Holy crap Lorric actually said something more eloquently than I was going to.
-
Anyway... don't you think it would be even more ridiculous if, say, my government airstriked you because a terrorist organization in your country is killing civilians in my country? I think it would be much more ridiculous than my government choosing to not airstrike at all if they can't airstrike the terrorists without also airstriking you.
If my country was doing nothing at all to inhibit the actions of said terrorists--or to be more accurate in the analogy, if my government was committing the acts of terrorism in the first place--then I would find it completely reasonable that another government would attack them. More to the point, if my own government was setting up military installations in civilian buildings with the express purpose of guaranteeing civilian casualties when said installations were attacked, I would choose to actively fight against them.
This isn't a goddamn numbers game here; it's not some account ledger that needs to come out balanced. It's about the responsibilities of governments towards their own citizens, and about the actions of one government that are intentionally endangering its own citizens. At some point, someone in Gaza has to stand up to Hamas and say, "Enough is enough, **** you people."
-
"But Aardwolf, that's a huge oversimplification!"
Somewhat.
You acknowledge that your glib interpretation of the ethics of geopolitics is unrepresentative of the way the real-world works, but you continue to insist that a nation shouldn't respond to direct agression?
-
Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel.
(yes I know it was a quote within a quote, but you reiterated it emphatically)
This assertion amounts to "you are only blaming Israel because they're Israel", aka "because you don't like them". I have told you why I am criticizing Israel, and the reasons I gave were clearly not that. Yet you continue to repeat this claim ascribing some motivation for my "blaming" Israel other than the one which I explicitly stated.
I will now explicitly state that "because they're Israel" or "because I don't like them" is not my motivation for criticizing Israel. If you repeat this claim again, you are calling me a liar, and I will not stand for that.
Note: "I" = succinct version of "myself and others in this thread who have expressed similar criticisms of Israel's recent behavior"; the same goes for other first person pronouns, verb conjugations, etc..
I wasn't referring to you at all, I was talking about the international community. I could be wrong, but I think Scotty's motivations were the same as mine. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
-
Le sigh.
Lets say in the scenario I presented earlier, instead of countries or factions, the people involved are you, your friends, your family, and your loved ones, split into two groups based on who gets heads or tails on a coin toss.
The groups split up and each group independently attends a course on ethics; "heads" decides it is their responsibility to protect the lives of the members of "heads", while "tails" decides it is their responsibility to protect the lives of the members of "tails".
Now "heads" has to choose between letting 1 randomly selected member of "heads" die, or letting 200 randomly selected members of "tails" die. Ok, you probably don't have 200 friends, family, and loved ones. Lets say only 10.
Which choice do you hope team "heads" goes with?
Why is your answer different when I use the terms "your friends, family, and loved ones", "teams determined by a coin toss", and "for no good reason", versus when I use the terms "civilians", "countries", and "in self-defense"?
-
Random suggestion: Ignore Aardwolf's attempt of kidnapping the topic and continue meaningful discussion without him.
-
OK, what the hell, I apparently lost a post. I had responded to Luis and Joshua at the top of the page this afternoon, but it seems the damn forum ate my post. Arrrrrgh. It was both brilliant and eloquent too, damnit. Let's try this again. I'll see if I can recapture at least some of it.
Israel and the PA could come to a two-state solution. It would take time, but it can happen. Israel, the PA, and Hamas can't. This is fundamentally because Hamas ceases to exist if the two-state solution becomes a reality. The entire reason for Hamas' existence is to destroy the state of Israel - period.
Herein lies the quandry: if Israel does not respond to Hamas' attacks, there are two immediate consequences - (1) Hamas gains/maintains the limited support it has, and (2) Israel's population, being constantly under siege without a government that protects its civilians from rocket fire and Hamas' attacks, hardens against concessions as part of the two-state solution. So... not only does allowing Hamas to fire on Israel with impunity benefit Hamas, it simultaneously harms the best shot at peace in and around Israel in the long term. That's two significant long-term consequences which are more important than the short-term death toll in either direction.
Hamas runs Gaza through force of arms. Emboldening Hamas - by unilateral cessation of fire - gives them the propaganda victory of continuing to rain fire on Israel (which is popular among Hamas supporters and maintains or increases their support level), and further demoralizes the majority of Gazans who would love nothing better than to get rid of Hamas and invite the PA back in, but can't... because they're governed at gunpoint. Ceasing attacks against Hamas while they continue to attack Israel also allows them breathing room to perfect their techniques without worrying about a missile strike taking out their launchers and the people running them. That makes it very likely the civilian body count and destruction on the Israeli side will also increase which.... you guessed it, further benefits Hamas.
Hamas has a very clever tactic. They park their weapons and key personnel in places they surround with civilians, they fire at Israel, not caring about retaliation, and then they wait for the international community to condemn Israel while they gleefully continue the rocket attacks until the point at which they either run low on weapons or take enough hurt that continuing is no longer an option, but by then all the ignorant do-gooders in the West have done their job for them - they've ignored the fact that Hamas is a group of terrorists targeting civilians, and condemn the nation state defending its civilian population that happens to kill ordinary Gazans because Hamas intentionally puts them in harm's way.
The only end game here is the complete elimination of Hamas' power, and so long as they are firing at Israel, force is unfortunately the only way to work toward that. Only then will a true peace process be possible, and Hamas knows it, which is why they do their best to derail the process as frequently as possible. It's also self-preservation - if the two-state solution becomes a reality, Hamas loses its only reason to exist.
Once Hamas starts firing on Israel, Israel has no choice but to shoot back until Hamas can be forced into a cease fire. Doing anything else - at least until the intercept program is perfected to the point where Hamas can't hit Israel with any airborn weapons, period - harms the peace process in the long run. Even now, at the height of the pictures of dead children, Hamas does not have majority support in Gaza.
-
Random suggestion: Ignore Aardwolf's attempt of kidnapping the topic and continue meaningful discussion without him.
So I'm not the only one who thought that that came out of nowhere? That's a relief.
On a meaningful note, it seems to me the best way to minimize losses on both sides is to end it fast. That means quick action, no diplomatic timewasting.
-
Wtf guys. It did not "come out of nowhere". Everything on the past page or so has been about the theory of ethics zookeeper + I have been advancing, versus the half-baked not-a-proper-theory-of-ethics Mongoose and Scotty have been advancing.
-
I so desperately want to educate you on the concept of the social contract, but something tells me you're just going to refuse to believe that preserving life is not the apex of all human decision.
-
When I learned about the "social contract" in school, it was an implicit agreement individuals made with the rest of society, not an implicit agreement governments made with their citizens. Are you going to tell me they taught it wrong?
Tell me again, what was the rationale that said that 200 non-Israelis were worth 1 Israeli? You consistently rejected those terms, but at the end of the day your rationale still dictates that the 200 dead non-Israelis are preferable to the 1 dead Israeli.
Wait, have you just been describing the rationale Israel has been using, rather than your own personal opinion on what is or is not ethical?
-
I have been describing both. You continue to misunderstand that the number of lives does not matter for ****. Period. It could be one Israeli life for zero Palestinian lives, and the calculus would be the same. It could be one Israeli wounded for a thousand Palestinian lives, and the calculus would be the same.
A government must protect its people. This does not mean that a government must endeavor to prevent as many casualties as possible, this means that a government is duty-bound by the terms of the social contract (more on that later) to come to the defense of its citizens. A government that does not defend its population is not living up to those terms.
The social contract is an implicit agreement individuals made in order to form a society. Society cannot exist without the social contract. Society, and by extension the government that embodies that society's direction, must abide by those terms.
The terms in particular fluctuate as much on a geographical basis as on a cultural one (please do not confuse culture with society). There are some, however, that are fairly immutable. The first is that the individuals that form this society must give up certain freedoms and liberties that do not lend themselves to cooperation and beneficial action. Indiscriminate killing, theft, rape. You probably get the point.
In exchange for the relinquishment of those freedoms and/or liberties, individuals in a society also abdicate their responsibility to defend themselves from outside threat. I will repeat this for emphasis. Members of a society are not expected to defend themselves from external threat.
I want to be quick to point out that this doesn't always happen. When a government fails to defend its population, it is in breach of the social contract. It has, at the very basest level, failed in its most important objective.
This is why, ethically and morally speaking, it is reprehensible and irresponsible for Israel to not retaliate when Hamas launches attacks that are explicitly intended to kill or wound its population.
Battuta explains it best with his apartment metaphor, which I will re-appropriate. The members of an apartment complex, upon moving in, are not responsible for the security of the facility in any except the most basic terms (keep your doors locked when you're away). It is the responsibility of the land lord and/or management of the facility to ensure a safe environment for the tenants to live in. In the event of a threat, the management must respond or lose all credibility as to providing a safe environment. If the management cannot guarantee safety, the tenants will move, and the complex will fail. Such as it is with society and its government management.
-
Yes, you have described in detail how the social contract works. That does not have direct relevance to any argument on how right/wrong something is, because you can't draw the ethicality of something from what the social contract dictates. The social contract is basically a model describing how to form and run an orderly society, or, if you will, a handy tool for building one, but it's not a moral authority in the sense that anything done in accordance with the social contract must be right or that the social contract must be followed in every situation in the first place.
You're of course free to use the social contract as your source of ethics, but that does not make the social contract a proper argument unless you're arguing with someone who likewise subscribes to it (in the same extent as you).
EDIT:
Assuming this was even in part directed towards me:
I so desperately want to educate you on the concept of the social contract, but something tells me you're just going to refuse to believe that preserving life is not the apex of all human decision.
I can see why based on this thread you might come to that assumption, but I find it hilarious regardless considering that my views on life are exactly the opposite, meaning every living thing everywhere should die, preferably right now or at least as soon as possible. In the meantime though, the apex of all human decision ought to be minimizing suffering.
I might be arguing for about the same thing in this case than Aardwolf, but I bet that's about where the similarities end.
-
I recently read that the U.N. is investigating Israel for war crimes. Does anyone with better knowledge of the events know if there just investigating Israel, or are they investigating both Israel and Hamas.
I find it absurd that only Israel would be under investigation for war crimes and not Hamas (if that's the case).
-
I recently read that the U.N. is investigating Israel for war crimes. Does anyone with better knowledge of the events know if there just investigating Israel, or are they investigating both Israel and Hamas.
I find it absurd that only Israel would be under investigation for war crimes and not Hamas (if that's the case).
I've seen a headline or two only mentioning Israel for some reason, but it seems to me the U.N. has clearly referred to both.
-
On Hamas winning the propaganda war
Social contract
Quotes are problematic for me right now...
Anyway, True, true, true. Yet I have trouble fitting Operation Brother's Keeper into this, the massive manhunt and equally massive amount of arrests that preceeded this whole affair, which I find rather troubling in the face of all this as Israel has invaded another nation (okay, it's a lot more complicated then this, but let's roll with the Israeli version, who say that they don't occupy the west bank anymore) and has been seemingly obstructing, detaining, and even shooting people for alledged connections to hamas for alledged connections to the kidnapping. Israel handed Hamas the moral high ground on a silver platter with that one.
-
I can see why based on this thread you might come to that assumption, but I find it hilarious regardless considering that my views on life are exactly the opposite, meaning every living thing everywhere should die, preferably right now or at least as soon as possible. In the meantime though, the apex of all human decision ought to be minimizing suffering.
I don't understand you. You think every living thing should die (why?), but you opt for the option that involves the least amount of people dying.
As for the social contract, it's the first time I've heard the term. It's pretty interesting, but I don't refrain from murdering, raping and thieving to hold up my end of some bargain with the government, I do it because it's the right thing to do.
-
...my views on life are exactly the opposite, meaning every living thing everywhere should die, preferably right now or at least as soon as possible.
Ok, now that this discussion has turned into Twillight Zone, either you explain this really really well, or I can dismiss the entirety of your views from this moment on.
Israel handed Hamas the moral high ground on a silver platter with that one.
Wow, let's not go *that* far. Israel would have to go full Nazi before it could be compared with Hamas.
-
Social contracts are a social thing.
But I think it all depends on the government in charge as to just how valid a national social agreement is. .
Nazi party was efficient at some things but not great at others .(separate debate as to which and what)
Kim Jong senior was a bit media controlling / restrictive. Is that in the best interests of social progress / information?
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/sct.htm
covers most bases of social contract theory. I'm just throwing in another avenue of discussion as social contract theory is subjective in my opinion.
-
I don't understand you. You think every living thing should die (why?), but you opt for the option that involves the least amount of people dying.
Ok, now that this discussion has turned into Twillight Zone, either you explain this really really well, or I can dismiss the entirety of your views from this moment on.
This is certainly not the thread for that, nor do I care to attempt a discussion on it on a forum such as this anyway. And as for the latter, I don't have much interest in arbitrary dismissal and/or acceptance. :rolleyes:
-
Wtf guys. It did not "come out of nowhere". Everything on the past page or so has been about the theory of ethics zookeeper + I have been advancing, versus the half-baked not-a-proper-theory-of-ethics Mongoose and Scotty have been advancing.
Lest this fester and become a longer quarrel, I guess my choice of words last post wasn't very tactful. You caught me way off guard with the whole "liar" misunderstanding, and that threw me for a minute, that's all. Shall we shake and move on? :)
Regarding social contract, I think Lorric put it in a nutshell pretty well. Social contract theory is a valid theory as to why government exists in the first place, but it's a the result, not the source, of morality. That said, the only way to stop the violence in question is a quick and decisive response, which is more-or-less what Israel is doing.
-
Wow, let's not go *that* far. Israel would have to go full Nazi before it could be compared with Hamas.
Yeah that was a bit of a hyperbole. Still, it could be construed as a casus belli rather easily.
-
This is certainly not the thread for that, nor do I care to attempt a discussion on it on a forum such as this anyway. And as for the latter, I don't have much interest in arbitrary dismissal and/or acceptance. :rolleyes:
Yeah why not rolleyes on my comment asking for clarification after you making that wowzer of an ethical point about how everyone should be dead right now. That is really appropriate. Welcome to my ignore list.
-
This is certainly not the thread for that, nor do I care to attempt a discussion on it on a forum such as this anyway. And as for the latter, I don't have much interest in arbitrary dismissal and/or acceptance. :rolleyes:
If this isn't the forum to discuss it, then don't bring this up in the first place. If you make a point in here, you should be able and willing to elaborate on it. You either participate in a discussion fully, or not at all.
-
*re-reads*
Seems to me, he's saying he hates everything, and wants to see the world burn (like Nuke!). Or maybe he just thinks death and suffering are inevitable, and we might as well get all the dieing done at once instead of prolonging it. But since that's not going to happen any time soon, in the meantime he's going to optimize for minimal human suffering (like me!).
@The E: I suspect it really wasn't a "point", more of a personal "aside", which as he said was (for practical discussion purposes) secondary to the "minimize human suffering" bit.
-
Yes, but I didn't want to misinterpret anything in the wrong direction so I asked for clarification. I got one of a kind, so I'm cool.
-
Aside: zookeeper, I'm pretty sure he was talking to me when he said that thing you quoted
Returning to a slightly earlier topic:
preserving life is not the apex of all human decision
Indeed; "minimizing human suffering" would seem like a better utilitarian metric. But then you get into silly stuff like "no humans = no suffering". [/tangent]
In exchange for the relinquishment of those freedoms and/or liberties, individuals in a society also abdicate their responsibility to defend themselves from outside threat.
I disagree, for several reasons.
- In the conventional scenario of "nations with enemies", someone has to join the army.
- Practicality trumps "society has got me covered". If it's raining bombs, you get to a bomb shelter. If it's raining meteors, you get to a bomb shelter.
- You are treating Nation A as "a society" and Nation B as "a different society". We are all one big society.
Was it not apparent earlier that this was my philosophy here?1 Why do you choose to regard each nation as a separate society?1
1Srs question
-
So if Nation A attacks Nation B with rockets, and Nation A surrounds their launchers with innocents, the responsibility falls to Nation B to not counter-attack to keep the loss of life to a minimum? Seems to me like the responsibility should fall to Nation A to not surround their military targets with innocents. /shrug
-
Well of course, but just because we know what the "right thing" is doesn't mean they're going to do it. "Mind control" isn't a thing, but diplomacy is, and it seems a lot more feasible to persuade the right guys in Israel than it would be to persuade the right guys in Hamas.
Edit: By "of course" I mean: Yes, Nation A (Hamas analog) shouldn't do the bad thing they are doing; but since that's already happening, it falls to Nation B (Israel analog) to not do something even worse.
-
Yeah why not rolleyes on my comment asking for clarification after you making that wowzer of an ethical point about how everyone should be dead right now. That is really appropriate. Welcome to my ignore list.
I didn't roll eyes at you asking for clarification, I rolled eyes at you demanding me to "explain this really really well, or I can dismiss the entirety of your views from this moment on", which was indeed a way of asking for clarification, but a particularly unfriendly one.
If this isn't the forum to discuss it, then don't bring this up in the first place. If you make a point in here, you should be able and willing to elaborate on it. You either participate in a discussion fully, or not at all.
I didn't want to elaborate in this thread since it's almost completely unrelated to the actual topic of the thread, and I was very much expecting myself and whoever else participated on that tangent to soon enough be told that we're derailing the thread, which I believe we absolutely would have.
-
To move back to the social contract and why Israel is forced by it to attack the launchers, if Israel does not, that's basically the end of Israel as we currently know it. To disregard one of the primary principles of the social contract, namely protection from outside threats, is to basically declare it null and void. With no social contract governing Israel, it becomes the job of the people to restore it by whatever means are necessary, which is everything from peaceful protest (unlikely since that relies on a functioning social contract) to a violent popular revolution or even a military coup (more likely in my opinion).
-
If Israel does not [attack the launchers], that's basically the end of Israel as we currently know it.
Explain how.
But first, take the following into consideration:
- The counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire; it did not save (m)any Israeli lives.
- Predictions of X event having Y effect on diplomacy amount to "I think this is how the group psychology would work out"; there is no certainty to be had.
protection from outside threats
I would argue with this as well, but I'd be repeating myself.
Edit: And I'm still waiting on an explanation of why you (the people who are disagreeing with me on a "social contract" basis) choose to interpret Nation A as "a society" and Nation B as "a different society", rather than treating it as all one society.
-
I did explain how, and it has nothing to do with diplomacy or even saving lives. The nation of Israel is bound by the social contract to retaliate against those who attack it. The people of Israel have subordinated several things to the nation of Israel, security among them, and in this instance security means responding to outside threats. If the nation of Israel does not provide for communal security by retaliating against outside assaults, then it becomes the duty of the individual to provide for his own security.
Or, the version for those who don't know what the social contract is (like you, Aardwolf): The government doesn't respond to rocket attacks against its people in a forceful manner. The people rightfully get angry at their leaders for not protecting them, and then Bad Things happen inside Israel.
However, all this is predicated on the notion that people can and should respond to violent attacks unleashed upon them as an essential part of necessary self-defense. If you do not believe in the rights of the attacked to defend themselves from attack, then there's no way I nor anyone else here can you convince you of our viewpoint, and neither will you convince us of yours since our bases are so incompatible.
-
Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?
-
Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?
They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.
-
Pretty sure the social contract in Israel/Palestine just reads "Sign here to be part of the problem and get ****ed over _________ (no signature required)"
-
They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.
And you know why it's crazy? Because it's self-destructive for Hamas. Besides, it's not that they care about saving lives. Their entire point is "destroy Israel", except they can't even do that without becoming obsolete/their people realizing they're crap. Their existence is only rationalized by fighting with Israel, was this to stop, they'd cease to exist shortly afterwards.
Obviously, the very best solution would be Hamas saying "OK, screw this, we're going home. Sorry for the mess.". Israel would be, at that point, probably be willing to let them just stop firing and walk away. Except they aren't going to do that. They're an usual example of a bunch of tyrannical bigots. Kept together by primitive lust for power over other people, pretty much for power itself. This is fueled by blind devotion to their own interpretation of religion (it's actual teachings be damned, they're devoted to their own views, which they validate by bending an existing holy text to support them) and hate towards everything they don't understand, especially other religions. The only way to dislodge that kind of "government" is by violence. It's just a matter of directing this violence against actual members of the oppressive government and not against random people on the street.
-
They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.
Will it stop the situation as it is currently in the west bank, with people being detained without charges for six months or more? Will it stop stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper? There's a whole lot of stuff going on there that doesn't fit the "social contract" narrative, amongst other things.
-
The counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire; it did not save (m)any Israeli lives.
Do you actually have a source on this, and/or a reasonable expectation that the operation won't accomplish this, considering it's the primary purpose of said operation?
-
I wouldn't say anything like this until this op concludes. It's not looking like much so far, but it could bring results yet.
Will it stop the situation as it is currently in the west bank, with people being detained without charges for six months or more? Will it stop stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper? There's a whole lot of stuff going on there that doesn't fit the "social contract" narrative, amongst other things.
Probably, Israel would lose it's primary justification against acting like a prick towards Palestinians in general (let's face it, it does do that from time to time). Right now, any support for Palestinians in general is greatly inhibited by Hamas' actions. Should the Hamas stop it's bombardment and go for a peaceful resolution (or, more likely, be stomped flat either by IDF or an uprising), and Israel continue acting like it does, people would probably start noticing and asking questions whether it's really justified (especially considering West Bank, which is much less violent than Gaza). And US defending of Israel's interests can only go so far.
-
To move back to the social contract and why Israel is forced by it to attack the launchers, if Israel does not, that's basically the end of Israel as we currently know it. To disregard one of the primary principles of the social contract, namely protection from outside threats, is to basically declare it null and void. With no social contract governing Israel, it becomes the job of the people to restore it by whatever means are necessary, which is everything from peaceful protest (unlikely since that relies on a functioning social contract) to a violent popular revolution or even a military coup (more likely in my opinion).
EXACTLY what I was trying to get at. If the President failed to deploy the US armed forces against an outside attack, we wouldn't have a US government for very long.
-
those who don't know what the social contract is (like you, Aardwolf)
Did you ignore the thought experiment I described earlier? The one right before Spoon accused me of trying to kidnap the topic?
Go back and read it, and tell me that you would rather lose 10 randomly selected friends, family, and loved ones, than lose only 1 of them. Or, if you're not a horrible person, tell me why you don't think it's logically correct to substitute ("your friends, family, and loved ones", "groups chosen by a coin toss") in place of ("people", "nations"). Or, maybe actually learn from it.
And yes, I did leave out "for no good reason" vs "self-defense", because I remembered why I made it 0:1 versus 10:0 in the first place: so that team "heads" could claim self-defense.
However, all this is predicated on the notion that people can and should respond to violent attacks unleashed upon them as an essential part of necessary self-defense. If you do not believe in the rights of the attacked to defend themselves from attack, then there's no way I nor anyone else here can you convince you of our viewpoint, and neither will you convince us of yours since our bases are so incompatible.
Do you know why I included that bit about the counterattack not saving (m)any lives? The bit you deemed irrelevant, because "self defense"? It's because if the action doesn't actually make anyone safer, it doesn't qualify as defense. Either contest my claim that it doesn't make anyone safer, or stop claiming "self defense".
The counterattack did not significantly reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire; it did not save (m)any Israeli lives.
Do you actually have a source on this, and/or a reasonable expectation that the operation won't accomplish this, considering it's the primary purpose of said operation?
Ah, finally someone contests that claim. Congrats on finally understanding that it is indeed relevant, because with it I can prove that Israel's action of "self defense" is "defense" in name only.
To answer your question: It is a reasonable conclusion, one which I came to several pages ago. Based on the reasonable assumptions that the rate of fire of these rockets is not horrendously slow, and that it takes at least a few minutes for the counterattack to hit, I concluded that by the time the airstrike hits, most of the rockets will have already been launched, and the few extra rockets the airstrike destroyed would not likely have made the difference in either rate or volume of fire necessary to overwhelm the Iron dome system, or score (m)any "lucky hits" in lower-coverage areas.
-
To answer your question: It is a reasonable conclusion, one which I came to several pages ago. Based on the reasonable assumptions that the rate of fire of these rockets is not horrendously slow, and that it takes at least a few minutes for the counterattack to hit, I concluded that by the time the airstrike hits, most of the rockets will have already been launched, and the few extra rockets the airstrike destroyed would not likely have made the difference in either rate or volume of fire necessary to overwhelm the Iron dome system, or score (m)any "lucky hits" in lower-coverage areas.
So not only have you been willfully ignoring everything we've said to date, you've been doing it based on your own assumptions supported by.... what, exactly? Your extensive military training? Your intimate familiarity with rocket launch systems? Your on the ground experience with Hamas' rocket sites?
(http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-frogout.gif)
-
It's not my fault you didn't read the post where I first presented that hypothesis (or forgot it, whichever).
If you had reason to disagree with those assumptions, or the way I used them to draw that conclusion, why didn't you contest it earlier?
-
Will it stop the situation as it is currently in the west bank, with people being detained without charges for six months or more? Will it stop stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper? There's a whole lot of stuff going on there that doesn't fit the "social contract" narrative, amongst other things.
Of course it would. Just think about it for a second. Why does Israel does these things? Right, self defense. Preventing terrorist attacks etc. Look at what America does and continues to do to fight terrorism. Of course a lot of these things are not exactly kosher and its not as if Israel isn't without blame. But if you wanna pull an Aardwolf and make things really simple, then you could firmly say that a lot of the **** going on would come to a quick end if the Arabic/Islamic world would stop being such jerks to the Jews and would stop with their endless terrorist acts.
Also what dragon said above me.
And you know why it's crazy? Because it's self-destructive for Hamas. Besides, it's not that they care about saving lives. Their entire point is "destroy Israel", except they can't even do that without becoming obsolete/their people realizing they're crap. Their existence is only rationalized by fighting with Israel, was this to stop, they'd cease to exist shortly afterwards.
Obviously, the very best solution would be Hamas saying "OK, screw this, we're going home. Sorry for the mess.". Israel would be, at that point, probably be willing to let them just stop firing and walk away. Except they aren't going to do that. They're an usual example of a bunch of tyrannical bigots. Kept together by primitive lust for power over other people, pretty much for power itself. This is fueled by blind devotion to their own interpretation of religion (it's actual teachings be damned, they're devoted to their own views, which they validate by bending an existing holy text to support them) and hate towards everything they don't understand, especially other religions. The only way to dislodge that kind of "government" is by violence. It's just a matter of directing this violence against actual members of the oppressive government and not against random people on the street.
While you are partly true about Hamas as an organization. I think you are severely underestimating how much Hamas is supported by the Palestinian people themselves.
Disbanding Hamas won't instantly make the troubles go away. You'd need to reeducate a whole society full of people on all the hate they've been taught from childhood. You'd need to get them to agree that being a martyr suicide terrorist isn't a glorious thing, that Jews don't need to all burn to death and that the state of Israel can just, ya know... exist.
All of that **** combined with Islamic zealous jihad nonsense won't vanish just because a single terrorist organization packs up and leaves. As long as they keep poisoning every new generation with these doctrines of hatred this **** will continue on and on and on.
If the Palestinians would really want proper peace, it would have happened a long time ago.
-
Let's go in descending order of how recently I've explained why you're still not getting it.
I have been describing both. You continue to misunderstand that the number of lives does not matter for ****. Period. It could be one Israeli life for zero Palestinian lives, and the calculus would be the same. It could be one Israeli wounded for a thousand Palestinian lives, and the calculus would be the same.
I do not contest that lack of retaliation would lead to less Israeli deaths by way of the retaliatory operations.
I declare complete and utter bull**** that there's nothing lost from surrendering the initiate to retaliate.
Israel still exists because it projects force. When it ceases to project force, it will cease to exist. That is not a reasonable course of action for Israel to take, because it directly contravenes every good bit of sense that a governing body could exercise.
Your solution is morally reprehensible.
That's what I said, yes. The world is an ugly, stupid place. It's not that I don't care (and rather resent the insinuation that I don't), it's that I recognize that individual lives are less important than matters of national survival.
This is a classic case of short term gain versus long term suffering. You advocate short-term (70 years) gain. I'm advocating the survival of a state and the millions of people in it. If you feel like being crude about it, it's also a case of the ends justifying the means.
And all of this dances around one of the most important issues that you apparently don't understand: self-defense. I'll quote MP-Ryan's far more eloquent discourse on the subject, in case you glossed over or skimmed it on your way to making your point:
No other nation in the world would be expected to see rockets and weapons targeting their civilian population centers and just ignore it. It's patently unreasonable. And I'll go one further - all those assholes who think its a great idea to disrupt the Gaza blockade, to support the delivery of controlled goods into Gaza? Congratulations, you are the reason ground offensives become necessary, because that's one of the myriad of ways Hamas gets armed in the first place.
Israel is the only place in the entire goddamn world where this sort of thing results in people blaming Israel. It's victim blaming at the national level, and it's complete and utter bull****.
I love the parts of this conversation where you outright ignore everything I've said for the last two pages based purely on numbers of rockets.
I'll say it again: the number of rockets fired is totally irrelevant. Absolutely, completely, totally, wholly irrelevant. Even leaving aside the initial kidnapping and murder incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers) that touched off this entire incident, the number of Israeli deaths to date is similarly irrelevent.
You are advocating that a sovereign nation do nothing when faced by constant, dedicated, deliberate, and malicious bombardment of the population within its borders.
**** that.
What you continually fail to grasp is that I'm not arguing numbers, here, and neither is MP-Ryan. We're arguing principle, and the principle of the situation is that a state cannot allow its citizens to come to harm through inaction. That is the entire reason for a state to exist. Israel can no more not respond to these rocket attacks than you can decide not to flinch after getting punched in the fact, because flinching means you're a pussy and deserve to get punched again.
If you don't understand how the numbers are totally ****ing worthless here, there's nothing to gain from further discussion.
I called your line of reasoning bull****. That's very clearly arguing the position, not the person.
What you either do not understand the significance of or refuse to accept the ridiculousness inherent to the course of action is that you are essentially advocating that Israel allow Hamas to kill its citizens with impunity for as long as it takes Hamas to get bored. That is utterly unacceptable, on more levels than I care to name.
I haven't claimed Israel has no other option than to stamp out Hamas in the slightest. I have, however, claimed that Hamas cannot afford to make peace with Israel because it would fatally undermine their powerbase. Hamas agrees. (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/interview-abu-marzouk-hamas-israel-fatah-reconciliation.html#)
I've stated (repeatedly) that Israel cannot suffer acts of war without response. Hamas is the tiny guy that tries to punch a trained boxer. He might even get a little bit of a hit in, but no one should be surprised when the boxer punches back. Instead we get "Oh no, that guy's poor teeth! If only that boxer would let the little guy punch him, this would all turn out better."
There is a scenario in which Israel not retaliating against acts of war perpetuated by its neighbors would not result in Bad Things for Israel.
That scenario is not certain, nor do I (and obviously the government of the state of Israel) believe it to be particularly likely. The stakes in this decision are the lives of millions of people and Israel's existence as a sovereign nation. Taking the chance that non-retaliation would not be harmful is irresponsible in the highest order when confronted with the instability and history of the region.
I count no less than seven times that I've explained to you exactly why Israel cannot do what you think it should. MP-Ryan has chimed in a similar number of times. Mongoose has also expressed how utterly inane that is.
I will say it for the (at least) eighth time: The actual number of rockets, where they are located, and how much real damage they do is completely and utterly ****ing useless as a baseline for the response. I have declined to contest your point because it's stupid. You have recently pointed out on your very own how little you base it on, and how little you actually know about the situation, and admitted to the entire thread that it is, in fact, a stupid assumption.
So, again:
(http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-frogout.gif)
-
Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?
They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.
I think the suggestion that Hamas stopping firing rockets would lead to peace is about as naive as the one that peace would follow Israel stopping retaliation.
-
Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?
They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.
I think the suggestion that Hamas stopping firing rockets would lead to peace is about as naive as the one that peace would follow Israel stopping retaliation.
yup as it stands peace would take a substantial change in both the political and social dynamic of the situation on both sides of the conflict
-
Very well, the "counterattacking didn't reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire" argument is benched (but not disproved).
But I will not "get out". This is not a matter of me "not getting it". This is either a matter of opinion, or a matter of you not getting what I have been saying, on two issues:
1. Retaliation is not always defense.
2. A government's obligation to defend its people is not more important than the right of any innocent civilian, regardless of government, to not be killed.
All people, regardless of government, have a right to not be killed, and a government's obligation to defend its people is not more important than that.
-
Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?
They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.
I think the suggestion that Hamas stopping firing rockets would lead to peace is about as naive as the one that peace would follow Israel stopping retaliation.
Stopping aggression =/= signing a peace treaty.
Here, let me explain it to you in simple words: Hamas stops firing rockets. Israel has nothing to retaliate to.
Wow look, no shots are being fired all of the sudden. No more aggression. Simple basic logic is so naive.
-
Very well, the "counterattacking didn't reduce the rate or volume of rocket fire" argument is benched (but not disproved).
But I will not "get out". This is not a matter of me "not getting it". This is either a matter of opinion, or a matter of you not getting what I have been saying, on two issues:
1. Retaliation is not always defense.
2. A government's obligation to defend its people is not more important than the right of any innocent civilian, regardless of government, to not be killed.
You have not yet successfully presented a case for your first point. As I've been saying for the last five pages (apparently to deaf ears), lives are not the yardstick by which defense is measured. Intent, geopolitical landscape, and perception play into it as heavily if not more.
As for point number two, a governments obligation to defend its people is by definition more important to that government than the right of any civilian that is not of that government's people to not be killed. This is especially true when an opposing government has willfully and egregiously violated the standards for the safety of its own people in such a manner. Hamas has deliberately positioned itself to cause civilian casualties when it is attacked. This is a repugnant and blatantly obvious ploy to gain international support from people who think just like you do.
Hamas has successfully manipulated you. Congratulations.
-
Aardwolf, you're not actually advocating a complete stop of Israel's retaliation, are you? Would you still approve of actions against Hamas that would involve low or no civillian casualties? That is the impression I have got from you, that it is actions resulting in a too high number of civilian casualties you disapprove of, and that those civilian casualties actually do more damage to Israel than not striking at all, not the concept of being against retaliating against Hamas itself, am I right?
-
@Scotty:
1. So you agree that retaliation is not always defense. Good. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I believe this is the first time you have said that "intent" and "perception" had anything to do with it.
2. I deliberately chose to divorce myself from the specifics of the Israel vs Hamas conflict when phrasing these questions. I am aware of Hamas' repugnant and blatantly obvious ploy to gain international support; it is repugnant and blatantly obvious. It is also not relevant to the actual disagreement between us... unless the problem is that you have been arguing in abstract terms while thinking in Israel vs Hamas terms? Whatever, I'm not going to go back and read every thing you've written to check whether you used abstract or specific terms.
Is there a reason you have refused to comment on my thought experiment?
The reason I created that thought experiment was not (solely) to back you into a corner and force you to admit that your beliefs have absurd, detestable ramifications. Rather, it is sometimes useful to ask what the difference is between two obviously very different things, because it helps us articulate what that difference is.
So, I ask again: why do you think it is unreasonable to substitute ("your friends, family, and loved ones", "teams chosen by a coin toss") in place of ("people", "nations")?
@Lorric: My original objection was to the 194:1 civilian casualty rate, based primarily on the assumption that if Israel had not counterattacked, the total civilian casualties would be drastically lower than 195. So far I'm the only one (afaik) who has speculated about what the civilian casualties would've been like had Israel not counterattacked. My estimate was "0:1", but that was based on my "rate or volume of fire" hypothesis, which I will no longer repeat in a manner that might be interpreted as definite fact.
-
@Scotty:
1. So you agree that retaliation is not always defense. Good. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I believe this is the first time you have said that "intent" and "perception" had anything to do with it.
2. I deliberately chose to divorce myself from the specifics of the Israel vs Hamas conflict when phrasing these questions.
And you wonder why I'm so frustrated. You never quite deigned to tell us that you were trying to discuss the issue while ignoring most everything that makes the issue, you know, an issue.
The only thing you're accomplishing now is further obfuscating the serious discussion on the state of affairs between Israel and Gaza with your simplistic "thought experiments" and unwillingness to confront the actual topic.
I will say it for a ninth time. The circumstances in which Israel finds itself necessitate an armed response to an offensive stimulus. I have not changed my position or my intent. You can go back and read my my first weigh-in (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87980.msg1757200#msg1757200) on that particular issue to check for yourself. The core of the matter has always been that Israel cannot afford to not respond to these attacks.
EDIT: In case leaving the intent behind that last sentence implied turns out to be the wrong decision: the entire conversation we've had up to this point has been why Israel cannot afford to not respond, and how retaliation is the only effective response the IDF can muster into a Hamas-dominated Gaza.
-
I think the suggestion that Hamas stopping firing rockets would lead to peace is about as naive as the one that peace would follow Israel stopping retaliation.
Very much agreed. Like I said earlier in the thread, both sides are going to need to make serious diplomatic compromises for peace to be a real possibility. There is much, much, more to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza than Hamas/Fatah/etc provoking Israeli airstrikes, but it's difficult to find solutions before the violence has stopped. The situation is even more grim when you realize Palestinian politics is dominated by hard-line factions whose defining goals consist of getting rid of Israel entirely. Which has been stated several times in this thread and is already clear to most of us, I'm sure.
As far as utilitarianism goes, I think it's a really stupid way to approach geopolitics. It's one thing to make utilitarian decisions on a small scale and when there's no real persisting state to the next problem, but on a global scale you're going to have a hard time showing that a particular decision will lead to a sustainable favorable result with any degree of confidence. And greedily focusing on lives saved in the current incursion into Gaza is itself probably among the laziest utilitarian decisions I can imagine.
-
@Scotty: None of your explanations for why you think "not retaliating = doom" were convincing enough to make me agree.
If you will recall, one of my earlier counterarguments was that there must exist (by virtue of it being absurd (IMO) for there not to exist) some strategy (with silly acronyms!) where "not retaliating != doom". Except I made the mistake of using the word "scenario", which you latched onto and interpreted as "only one of the infinitely branching possible futures", when the point was that it be a decision strategy for minimizing the civilian death toll, taking the probability-weighted average of all of those infinitely branching futures, with the (implicit) assumption that if in one of those futures the state of Israel collapses, a lot of civilians would die, and those deaths count.
So when you told me you didn't care about the "numbers", that it was the "principle" of self-defense, even though my "numbers" take into account the Bad Stuff that would happen if that principle were not followed... that kind of sounded like an abstract ethics statement.
And yes I realize the "probability-weighted average for all of the possible outcomes [...]" is not knowable. But it seems to me to be very unlikely that no strategy exists that could do better than 195. Wanted to insert a stupid joke about CASSANDRA but it would have been too forced.
-
Devil's advocate:
Couldn't stuff like Operation Brother's Keeper be construed as an attack, thus justifying Hamas firing rockets into Israel (since it's the only thing they can do against Israeli agression)?
They could just stop firing rockets at Israel. That would... stop all aggression.
Wowow, crazy suggestion. I know.
I think the suggestion that Hamas stopping firing rockets would lead to peace is about as naive as the one that peace would follow Israel stopping retaliation.
Stopping aggression =/= signing a peace treaty.
Here, let me explain it to you in simple words: Hamas stops firing rockets. Israel has nothing to retaliate to.
Wow look, no shots are being fired all of the sudden. No more aggression. Simple basic logic is so naive.
Indeed it is, as it assumes that Israel isn't doing anything to provoke Hamas. Or the palestinians in general.
-
I don't think Hamas needs any provocation to be the scumbags they are. I think this point needs to be driven home more often: Hamas is the ****tiest **** there is. Had Hamas the power in its hands that Israel has, the region would now be experiencing nuclear fallout. This is beyond certainty. So the point like "Oh Israel is just provoking poor Hamas into doing this" should not even be thought, let alone written. For all the sympathy I have with the palestinian people, let's also be clear about this: Hamas was elected by them. Hamas declared war on Israel. And now they are surprised Israel is fighting back?!? Come on. Even the germans in WW2 had a little more dignity on this.
-
Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel and a number of Western and non-Western governments; The United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, Egypt and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. Other states, however, including Iran, Russia, Turkey, China and many Arab nations do not.
..........
Hamas was founded in 1987 (during the First Intifada) as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.[3][4] Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel
..........
Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, deputy chairman of Hamas political bureau, said in 2014 that "Hamas will not recognize Israel", adding "this is a red line that cannot be crossed"
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter is useful for understanding why this is not a simple action/reaction scenario. the very existence of hamas moves the situation into a self perpetuating conflict by the very nature of the organisation. Israel can turtle up all it likes but Hamas' own charter means it has to keep up the offensive, either overtly or covertly. hence my comment about significant political and social change for there to be peace.
-
I don't think Hamas needs any provocation to be the scumbags they are. I think this point needs to be driven home more often: Hamas is the ****tiest **** there is. Had Hamas the power in its hands that Israel has, the region would now be experiencing nuclear fallout. This is beyond certainty. So the point like "Oh Israel is just provoking poor Hamas into doing this" should not even be thought, let alone written. For all the sympathy I have with the palestinian people, let's also be clear about this: Hamas was elected by them. Hamas declared war on Israel. And now they are surprised Israel is fighting back?!? Come on. Even the germans in WW2 had a little more dignity on this.
Yet I do keep wondering: If Israel hasn't kept doing stuff like blocading the region, building houses on the west bank, building a wall trough the palestinian territory, detaining people seemingly at random, shooting protestors and all that stuff... Would Hamas even have been elected? I am not saying that Hamas is not evil, but I do think that some of Israel's objectives, stances and methods are what led to the organization's creation and rise to power in the first place. Endless circle of violence.
Spoon mentoined that Israel's actions are very much like the US's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq in the war on terror, but those actions did destabalize the region as well.
-
Yet I do keep wondering: If Israel hasn't kept doing stuff like blocading the region, building houses on the west bank, building a wall trough the palestinian territory, detaining people seemingly at random, shooting protestors and all that stuff... Would Hamas even have been elected? I am not saying that Hamas is not evil, but I do think that some of Israel's objectives, stances and methods are what led to the organization's creation and rise to power in the first place. Endless circle of violence.
Spoon mentoined that Israel's actions are very much like the US's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq in the war on terror, but those actions did destabalize the region as well.
What I don't get is how you don't see you've got things backwards. Why did they blockade the region? To attempt to put a stop to all those annoying rockets they keep firing from being imported. Would this blockade have been in effect if the palestinians never would have started firing rockets and **** toward Israel in the first place? Most lilkely not.
Building that wall, again. A reaction toward palestinian suicide bombers, and apparantly it seems to do pretty well.
Israel argues that the barrier is necessary to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism, including the suicide bombing attacks that increased significantly during the Second Intifada.[6] There has been a reduced number of incidents of suicide bombings since the construction of the barrier. According to statistics published by the Israeli government, between 2000 and July 2003, when the "first continuous segment" of the barrier was built, 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 Israelis and injuring over 1,900. However, from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out, killing 64 Israelis and wounding 445.[7] Supporters argue that this is indicative of the barrier being effective in preventing such attacks.
Yet you make it out like the Jews are building walls just to piss of palestinians. Wierd.
Shooting protestors happens all over the world, I'm not saying this makes it a right/good thing to do or anything, but from what I've seen from palestinian protestors... none of them seem to be exactly peaceful in their protests. The house building is one thing I do agree with you on, that's definitely a provokation. And the way how these colonization projects sometimes go, its kind of jerk thing to do.
But all in all, it's pretty much always the case that the palestinians are acting like jerks, then Israel responds to it. And then the palestinians are going full victim mode, shout at the media how they are so poor and oppressed by the big mean jews.
-
Is this a looping thread yet?
I'm watching it and reading it. It's a bit like a tennis final, back and forth etc.
-
What I don't get is how you don't see you've got things backwards. Why did they blockade the region? To attempt to put a stop to all those annoying rockets they keep firing from being imported. Would this blockade have been in effect if the palestinians never would have started firing rockets and **** toward Israel in the first place? Most lilkely not.
Building that wall, again. A reaction toward palestinian suicide bombers, and apparantly it seems to do pretty well.
Yet, the wall is built Yet why is the wall built INSIDE the palestinian territories? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#mediaviewer/File:Settlements2006.jpg) Constructing a wall on your border makes sense, constructing a wall in another country's territory much less so.
Yet you make it out like the Jews are building walls just to piss of palestinians. Wierd.
---
But all in all, it's pretty much always the case that the palestinians are acting like jerks, then Israel responds to it. And then the palestinians are going full victim mode, shout at the media how they are so poor and oppressed by the big mean jews.
My point is that Israel's actions do give the palestinians the ammunition to do exactly that (it seems hard to argue that the palestinians are not in fact poor and opressed by the big Israeli's, see picture above, the settlements and the other stuff going on violating the 4th geneva convention and everything).It seems hopelesly counter-intiutive, and I don't see how it fits the "social contract" narrative.
-
You seem to have forgotten that Palestine isn't a recognized country by Israel yet. Hamas ****ed up every chance of getting into a good path of reconcilliation because they are not interested in such. They have to be neutralized. If Gaza can't do so on its own (as you put it, Israel "gives" palestinians reasons to hate them and so on), then Israel has no other choice but to go there and do so themselves. No matter how sympathetic I am with the Palestinians, political groups like Hamas have no place in our planet and should be erradicated.
-
You seem to have forgotten that Palestine isn't a recognized country by Israel yet. Hamas ****ed up every chance of getting into a good path of reconcilliation because they are not interested in such.
Palestina is much more then just Hamas though. I agree about the whole Gaza strip (in fact, I proposed the full annexation of that area a while back in this thread), but when I look at the West Bank, I get the distinct impression that the current government of Israel is also not very much interested in peace.
-
So, srs question: has Israel ever asked for international assistance in dealing with these threats?
-
Yet I do keep wondering: If Israel hasn't kept doing stuff like blocading the region, building houses on the west bank, building a wall trough the palestinian territory, detaining people seemingly at random, shooting protestors and all that stuff... Would Hamas even have been elected?
Israel systematically hobbled Fatah, probably even going as far as to poison Yasser Arafat. In doing so, they pretty much made them unelectable. Hamas seemed to be the only party in the region capable of actually doing anything. It's not bloody surprising they were elected.
Yet everyone wants to put the entire blame for Hamas being in power on the Palestinians who were simply doing what pretty much everyone else does and voting for whoever they thought would get **** done in the short term.
Are we really going to hold the downtrodden and under-educated Palestinians to a standard that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to themselves?
-
Yes, because that was what we did regarding Germany in World War 2. No matter how you could draw a causal line between the Treaty of Versailles and the Holocaust, what really matters is that the decision of the German people to have those crooks near the political power was not a good idea at all and this should be a lesson for all time. Voting in a party that has genocide and the destruction of entire countries / peoples around them as a program should always be a taboo, and if the Palestinian people didn't know it then, well they can learn.
I'm not excusing Israel of the **** they are and have done. They shouldn't, IMHO, have decided to go for this particular Op for example*, but if you can't distinguish between a hawkish conservative warish party line and a genocidal, maniacal, fanatical party, then well little hope we have.
*Having started it, they should "play their part to the bloody end".
-
The German people never voted the Nazis into power in a fair election. They were a minority member of a coalition, then got free reign to suppress their political enemies.
-
Glad my phrase wasn't precisely "into power" but quite another one then.
-
That's irrelevant pedantry and you know it. The Nazis did not come to power through popular support.
-
Like Hamas did?
-
That's irrelevant pedantry and you know it. The Nazis did not come to power through popular support.
Oh I'm sorry so the election that got them bloody 37.8% in 1932 was rigged in that same amount of people now was it? Who's really engaging in irrelevant pedantry" here and knows it for ****s sake?
-
That result is indeed nowhere near a majority!
-
It was, unless I'm much mistaken, a plurality, which is what a lot of people think about when saying the word majority in the first place.
-
I feel like my most recent actually-maybe-constructive post has been unduly ignored. *pout*
-
The German people never voted the Nazis into power in a fair election. They were a minority member of a coalition, then got free reign to suppress their political enemies.
They did. This:
That result is indeed nowhere near a majority!
Doesn't make the election unfair. Nazis went into power with a plurality. An actual majority is very rare in Europe, outside of two-party systems like US or UK it practically doesn't happen (Poland came close recently, though). So learn to distinguish a "majority" from the more general "popular support" and with "plurality", which is how elections are usually decided in Europe. And I'd say, the situation here is very similar. People elected Nazis because they wanted a government that would do something. Fatah sat on their butts being corrupt and all the other parties were no better. Hamas, like the Nazis before, said "It's all because of them!, let's get rid of them!". And "them!" happened to be the same people in both cases, to boot. People went with them, because in the time of crisis, a strong arm and decisiveness are often needed to lead the country through. Unlike all the others, Hamas actually done something. This wasn't the right thing to do, of course, but given the choice between doing something and not, people tend to chose the former. Those people aren't smart enough to know the difference, unfortunately, but apparently neither was anyone before WWII started ("Mr. Hitler will sort it all out." remember?").
That said, I'm not sure if the people like them so much anymore. Having already shown their true colors as brutal dictators, they're presumably not liked much. As long as they can justify their actions by fighting Israel, they live, but were they to do what they do outside of a crisis, they'd probably get overthrown like other Middle Eastern tyrants were.
While you are partly true about Hamas as an organization. I think you are severely underestimating how much Hamas is supported by the Palestinian people themselves.
Disbanding Hamas won't instantly make the troubles go away. You'd need to reeducate a whole society full of people on all the hate they've been taught from childhood. You'd need to get them to agree that being a martyr suicide terrorist isn't a glorious thing, that Jews don't need to all burn to death and that the state of Israel can just, ya know... exist.
All of that **** combined with Islamic zealous jihad nonsense won't vanish just because a single terrorist organization packs up and leaves. As long as they keep poisoning every new generation with these doctrines of hatred this **** will continue on and on and on.
If the Palestinians would really want proper peace, it would have happened a long time ago.
The problem with Hamas is that formal disbanding would be indeed practically meaningless. Actual members of the organization are one thing, but there's more to Hamas than just that. Along with their command structure, all people who were brainwashed into hating Jews would have to be reeducated. This is sort of what I meant, in practice, disassembling a terrorist organization typically just splinters it. It might even just reform under a different leader. That's why I said they'd have to go home as an organization, and perhaps disband after. Those kinds of organizations are usually pretty devoted to their leader, and if he'd changed his mind, a lot of people would follow suit just because of that (that's not to say it still wouldn't splinter. c.f. IRA after the Truce and Treaty).
Now, I'm convinced not everyone is like this. Government brainwashing is never 100% effective, many people often pretend that they go with the government's views. In Nazi Germany you had people who displayed a bust of Hitler and a big fat copy of "Mein Kampf" in their living room but they also had a family of Jews in the attic at the same time. Soviet Union was even worse, with "capitalist" luxuries in plain view along with Marx and Engels' works and a bust of Lenin. I don't know how many Palestinians actually hate Jews, but given what Hamas does to people who don't (or don't hate them enough), I wouldn't expect to find that out while they're in power.
-
Yes, because that was what we did regarding Germany in World War 2
It's defenitely not what we did regarding Germany after WW2, when it was no longer under the control of the nazi party (and the west bank is currently not under control of Hamas, mind). The victors fully recognized that Nazism should never rise again, and instead of hobbling Germany they decided to give them the tools to achieve greatness. And lo and behold, now they are winning world cups :P.
So, srs question: has Israel ever asked for international assistance in dealing with these threats?
Israel is already recieving quite a bit of economic and military aid (I think currently the only country recieveing more from the US is afghanistan), although it is mainly in pure dollars rather then in manpower or equipment (But ISrael has plenty of that already anyway).
Oh I'm sorry so the election that got them bloody 37.8% in 1932 was rigged in that same amount of people now was it? Who's really engaging in irrelevant pedantry" here and knows it for ****s sake?
It droped to a 30.8 later in 1932, before massive rigging and such took over. The NSDAP would never have seized absolute power if was not for their SA and other actions during '33.
-
Military aid, you say... But it's still always been the Israeli military that does the actual trigger-pulling, right? Does the UN consider Hamas a legitimate political party, or... what's keeping the UN or NATO from getting involved and waging a proper ground war to purge Hamas completely?
-
Military aid, you say... But it's still always been the Israeli military that does the actual trigger-pulling, right? Does the UN consider Hamas a legitimate political party, or... what's keeping the UN or NATO from getting involved and waging a proper ground war to purge Hamas completely?
Israel not asking them, obviously. Besides, it's not like they need actual armies assisting them, they have already shown that they can wipe the floor with the countries surrounding them, let alone hamas.
-
What the place needs is a peacekeeping force. Israel's military works just fine, and is very well staffed and equipped. It's not like they don't have the means to flatten their neighbors and be done with it. It's just that it's a really bad idea to try that these days. Their military is the most modern and advanced in the Middle East and literally every citizen could be sent to fight if they needed that. Except that's not the way it's done these days. Conquering enemies went out of fashion somewhere between WWI and WWII, Israel needs more civilized methods if it wants to keep calling itself better than it's neighbors.
This place needs an UN intervention, one that would listen and be listened to by both sides. One that would ensure Palestinians have their land, without Israeli cities being built there and Israelis have theirs, without Palestinian rockets falling on their heads. And Jerusalem needs to be made an independent, neutral nation, accessible to everyone, because all the Koran/Torah/Bible thumpers would probably be displeased with anything else (not to mention it'd be very good for business for everyone in and around it. They could be making millions off all these pilgrims!). I'd say, both Israelis and Palestinians are at fault in this conflict, and I don't think any of them is going to let go of it without an external intervention.
-
I am sure the Sauds would love turning Jeru into another Mecca... Isra should beat them to the punch! :P
At this point though, I doubt there will be any solution enforced besides a new scattered diaspora.
-
This place needs an UN intervention, one that would listen and be listened to by both sides. One that would ensure Palestinians have their land, without Israeli cities being built there and Israelis have theirs, without Palestinian rockets falling on their heads. And Jerusalem needs to be made an independent, neutral nation, accessible to everyone, because all the Koran/Torah/Bible thumpers would probably be displeased with anything else (not to mention it'd be very good for business for everyone in and around it. They could be making millions off all these pilgrims!).
Sounds a lot like Jack Ryan's solution from "Sum of All Fears" (I agree it's a good idea, but getting the interested parties to agree might be hard).
-
Yet I do keep wondering: If Israel hasn't kept doing stuff like blocading the region, building houses on the west bank, building a wall trough the palestinian territory, detaining people seemingly at random, shooting protestors and all that stuff... Would Hamas even have been elected?
Israel systematically hobbled Fatah, probably even going as far as to poison Yasser Arafat. In doing so, they pretty much made them unelectable. Hamas seemed to be the only party in the region capable of actually doing anything. It's not bloody surprising they were elected.
Yet everyone wants to put the entire blame for Hamas being in power on the Palestinians who were simply doing what pretty much everyone else does and voting for whoever they thought would get **** done in the short term.
Are we really going to hold the downtrodden and under-educated Palestinians to a standard that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to themselves?
That's not a fair comparison. No citizens of Western countries have voted knowingly, into power, a party that refuses to recognize another country and has that other nation's destruction as a primary goal of the party organization. Yes, Hamas probably seemed like the only viable alternative to Fatah. That said, they knew full well that Hamas was going to continue to strike at Israel, and they knew from history that they would use ordinary Gazans as shields. "Rock and a hard place" seems an apt description.
As for the current situation, most Gazans want Hamas gone anyway, but they can't get rid of them because they're in power and staying that way through force of arms... a situation that every idiot Westerner, who has not one clue about history or geopolitics but gets outraged at Israel on the basis of body count, forcing Israels hand and playing precisely into Hamas tactics and agenda to begin with, perpetuates.
The practical reality of the situation is that, long term, both the peace process overall and ordinary Gazans as a group would be much better off if the rest of the world backed off and let Israel wipe the floor with Hamas. As soon as that happened, the blockades could be lifted, international aid could be fully re-established, an economy established, and Gazan lives infinitely bettered with Israel unable to utter so much as a whisper of complaint because the security threat would be, for all intents and purposes, eliminated (if only temporarily).
The key to a lasting peaceful solution in the Gaza strip is a local economy. There were high hopes one might be established following the Israeli withdrawal in 2005; Hamas took over and it never happened, and it never will happen so long as Hamas continues to be able to strike at Israel. There are plenty of barriers to lasting peace on the Israeli side, but the largest immovable obstacle is Hamas. Israel will bow to international pressure; the terrorist ****s holding Gaza hostage will not.
-
Such a measure would never happen because that would require a majority in the security council/ the general assembly. And lol UN agreement and actually accomplishing things.
Fatalistic hyperbole aside, foreign "enforcement" of peace in the middle east is not a good prospect. It has been demonstrated many times that middle eastern countires are very resistant to foreign influences. Most noticeably in Afghanistan and Iraq recently where some insurgents were fighting just because the US was the big foreign occupying power. Just as they did when the soviets invaded. What you propose the UN to do would essentially amount to an occupation, and that I don't see doing anything but implode. Unfortunately, change has to come from within the factions involved
-
but they can't get rid of them because they're in power and staying that way through force of arms... a situation that every idiot Westerner, who has not one clue about history or geopolitics but gets outraged at Israel on the basis of body count, forcing Israels hand and playing precisely into Hamas tactics and agenda to begin with, perpetuates.
Armchair politics isn't going to affect crap, especially not whether Hamas continues to suppress voters.
And just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're stupid or ignorant. As an example: myself. I am not stupid, and contrary to whatever conclusions you may have reached in order to explain to yourself why I persist in disagreeing with you, I am not nearly as ignorant as you might believe. I have perfectly good reasons for disagreeing.
Specifically:
1. It is entirely reasonable for me to want to see evidence before accepting the presumption that the counterattack had significant real defensive value, i.e. that it actually kept Israelis safe (in the immediate short term).
And then the following two bits, which are relevant only if it would have been possible to achieve a lesser total death toll by allowing for a higher Israeli death toll:
2. I reject the ethical argument that the principle that a government must protect its people is more important than the principle that people have a right to live (and that if lives must be taken, fewer is better). Any group of people (including a nation) can conclude, on the basis of "people have a right to live", that if action is possible to protect the life of a member of that group ("from an outside threat" is optional), that action should be taken. There is no reason this should apply to groups ranging in size from "two best friends" up to "nation", but not to the largest group of people, "all human kind".
"But that doesn't take into account the history or geopolitics!", you say.
3. I am not ignorant of geopolitics, but I do not trust its predictive value. Any sort of predictive rule about how the diplomatic situation would evolve under certain circumstance can be completely upset by one person saying the right words to the right audience. This is why I have asserted earlier (and now restate and rephrase here), that there (probably) exists a decision strategy which could start from an initial death toll of (<194 Palestinians, >1 Israelis, < 195 total) and which over the course of its execution would result in less total deaths, and less "total suffering" (though that's harder to quantify), than Israel's current strategy.
-
That's not a fair comparison. No citizens of Western countries have voted knowingly, into power, a party that refuses to recognize another country and has that other nation's destruction as a primary goal of the party organization.
1. They've not been in a position where they would have to recently. Are you seriously telling me you don't think it could happen again in the west?
2. Depends what you claim is a Western nation. Serbia for instance did exactly that.
Yes, Hamas probably seemed like the only viable alternative to Fatah. That said, they knew full well that Hamas was going to continue to strike at Israel, and they knew from history that they would use ordinary Gazans as shields. "Rock and a hard place" seems an apt description.
Which is kinda my point. Had Israel not systematically hobbled Fatah, Hamas wouldn't even be in a position of power now.
-
Yet I do keep wondering: If Israel hasn't kept doing stuff like blocading the region, building houses on the west bank, building a wall trough the palestinian territory, detaining people seemingly at random, shooting protestors and all that stuff... Would Hamas even have been elected?
Israel systematically hobbled Fatah, probably even going as far as to poison Yasser Arafat. In doing so, they pretty much made them unelectable. Hamas seemed to be the only party in the region capable of actually doing anything. It's not bloody surprising they were elected.
Yet everyone wants to put the entire blame for Hamas being in power on the Palestinians who were simply doing what pretty much everyone else does and voting for whoever they thought would get **** done in the short term.
Are we really going to hold the downtrodden and under-educated Palestinians to a standard that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to themselves?
That's not a fair comparison. No citizens of Western countries have voted knowingly, into power, a party that refuses to recognize another country and has that other nation's destruction as a primary goal of the party organization. Yes, Hamas probably seemed like the only viable alternative to Fatah. That said, they knew full well that Hamas was going to continue to strike at Israel, and they knew from history that they would use ordinary Gazans as shields. "Rock and a hard place" seems an apt description.
I strongly believe that countries should be held responsible for the people they elect. There's far too much of the "I voted for the least ****ty party I thought might win" followed by "Why is the government so ****?"
How's about actually electing someone good in the first place?
And that's not an issue which only affects the Japanese, but pretty much every democratic nation.
Electing organisation which loudly proclaims to the World it wants to erase Israel = get a pass. Electing guy with dodgy views on events that happened decades ago = reprehensible!
-
2. I reject the ethical argument that the principle that a government must protect its people is more important than the principle that people have a right to live (and that if lives must be taken, fewer is better). Any group of people (including a nation) can conclude, on the basis of "people have a right to live", that if action is possible to protect the life of a member of that group ("from an outside threat" is optional), that action should be taken. There is no reason this should apply to groups ranging in size from "two best friends" up to "nation", but not to the largest group of people, "all human kind".
I am surprised at how much resistance there is to this. I can't advocate it in such pure terms as you due to what I talked about before about self-preservation or I would be a hypocrite expecting people to meet standards I could not meet if I was in the killzone.
However, there is definitely a limit as far as I'm concerned too. Scotty said it would be okay to kill a thousand civillians for one wounded. I could not accept that ratio even if I was in the kill zone. Even the nazis when they rounded up civilians in conquered countries for the firing squads to punish the acts of resistance fighters killing and wounding German soldiers didn't come close to that. The worst I've heard of is 50 civilians for a wounded German soldier and 100 for a dead one.
If Hamas terrorists were launching rockets from a compound full of civilians, resulting in the wounding of one Israeli, and Israel responded by flattening the compound, killing 1,000 innocents, that would not be acceptable, that would be a war crime and is not just stepping over the line for me, it's sprinting over the line and over the horizon.
If a big guy punched a small guy in the mouth and said he was going to do it again, the small guy would not get away with burning the guy's house to the ground in the night with that guy and his whole family inside in order to make sure he doesn't get attacked again. And yes, I know he should have to call the police, you know what I'm trying to say. Maybe this would be more apt to have the police burning down the house.
-
Hamas
Israel
-
What a disgusting abomination
-
Electing organisation which loudly proclaims to the World it wants to erase Israel = get a pass. Electing guy with dodgy views on events that happened decades ago = reprehensible!
Are we really going to hold the downtrodden and under-educated Palestinians to a standard that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to themselves?
You have literally done this by quoting that old comment. That comment was that I believe people should spoil ballots or write in a candidate rather than elect someone because they are the best of two dreadful candidates. But this is something that doesn't happen even in the Western world and you are basically condemning the Palestinians for not being the first people in history to ever do it.
I think the Palestinians were idiots to elect Hamas, but who the **** were they going to elect? I hold the Palestinians responsible for electing Hamas, but not to the point where I think they should die for it. Not to the point where I think that we can point to every single dead person and say "The Palestinians are 100% to blame for those deaths cause they cast a vote in an election"
I also love how you deliberately cropped out the following statement.
And that's not an issue which only affects the Japanese, but pretty much every democratic nation.
Which makes it clear what I was actually talking about.
-
I think the Palestinians were idiots to elect Hamas, but who the **** were they going to elect? I hold the Palestinians responsible for electing Hamas, but not to the point where I think they should die for it. Not to the point where I think that we can point to every single dead person and say "The Palestinians are 100% to blame for those deaths cause they cast a vote in an election"
I also love how you deliberately cropped out the following statement.
And that's not an issue which only affects the Japanese, but pretty much every democratic nation.
Which makes it clear what I was actually talking about.
Well, that's more or less how I feel about the Palestinians too. So I am happy with that.
As for the left out bit, I just didn't think it was relevant. I'll add it to my OP.
-
I am leery of getting into this, but it caught attention. Will try and pose some questions and responses briefly in as least inflammatory manner as possible:
Palestine is not a nation, and the news regularly is disingenuous by using terminology that assumes it is. Both Hamas, and the PNA, are at best, psuedo-governments, because as far as many international judgements go, it is an occupied territory rather than a sovereign nation. While not all people object for this reason, this is the reason why supporters can claim special treatment for the Palestinians in the public eye. Israel is a sovereign nation and official signatory to many treaties involving international law and war crimes. Palestine is not on the former and has muddled status on the latter. I'm all for being able to condemn both side when appropriate, but when Israel does something, legally, the international response can be more clear cut because no one can dispute Israel has responsibilities under the treaties it's signed. Similarly, referring to attacks on Israel as 'external' makes sense in a cultural sense, but the political and legal support of that matter can become muddled because of Gaza's political status.
Is it an occupied territory, a semi-autonomous zone, a nation, or an occupied nation? Depending on which way you answer this question, the Palestinian and Israeli responsibilities toward each other change drastically.
In addition : the claim that any nation would suffer severe hits to stability after refusing to respond to an attack, or loss of life by another aggressor is historically untrue. The United States has chosen not to respond militarily to quite a number of incidents in the past 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_%28AGER-2%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
Most notably, the last one involved the USSR shooting down a passenger jet carrying a US congressman. Not only did our failure to respond militarily to these events not doom our country's security, in several cases, defusing the situation was the overwhelmingly sane thing to do.
Thirdly. I, do not in any way celebrate Hamas's tactics, but as I think I saw Kara mention, the claim that all aggression has to stop from Gaza and things would be fine, seems... really shaky. Pragmatically, the Palestinians have next to no ability to exert political pressure on Israel in any other manner, and no guarantees of anything good happening for their side if they were to disarm. They'd have to remove their last remaining means of achieving local and international attention, on just the good faith that Israel would then deal with them, when the evidence so far to that indicates a less than optimistic picture of things. And even that situation is unbalanced:
You can say both sides have this issue of taking things on faith, but the difference is that if Israel was attacked in an overt fashion (i.e. the scenario painted that if not for the blockade, Palestinian forces could stream across the border into Israel, or the idea that an Israel that didn't power project would invite a massive attack by nearby Arab nations), not only can Israel expect some level of international assistance, they also arguably nowadays have such a powerful Military and Intelligence agency that they could win an extended fight like that. Iran is probably the only nation in the area that poses any threat to Israel, and Iran becoming involved would damn near guarantee the US would become involved militarily, and Iran is likely aware of this. Contrast that to the idea of Gaza taking things on faith and going completely disarmed. They'd be completely at the mercy of Israel, and the shaky hope that the only defense they'd have left would be the international community might help in time, something that seems less and less likely considering how little the international community has been willing to become involved in Syria or Ukraine.
I'm torn between condemning attacks on civilians while also understanding that many people in Gaza may have the perspective that they have no other option. Both sides are claiming that they don't want their people to be wiped out, yes, but one side has a dramatically higher risk of being wiped out than the other. Historically earlier in their history Israel might have been able to claim the reverse, but for right now, the Palestinians have a better claim to say their right to exist is in danger.
-
What the place needs is a peacekeeping force. Israel's ... military is the most modern and advanced in the Middle East and literally every citizen could be sent to fight if they needed that.
Not quite true. Arab Israeli citizens are exempt from military service, as are many religious Jews (not for the same reasons). Reservists are composed of 21-40 year olds, and once released from reserve service (ie. at or around 40 years old), by law you cannot be called up again into military service, even if the country is in a full-blown war and needs every bit of manpower it has.
Also, we tried international peacekeeping forces 14 years ago. Some of the more veteran HLP members may remember the 3 kidnapped IDF soldiers in 2000, Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan (both of whom I knew personally) and Omar Sawaid. The UN had a "peacekeeping" force in South Lebanon at the time actually filming the abduction, and they did absolutely nothing: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3685705,00.html
So you can understand our tendency towards the mentality of "if you want something done right, do it yourself" - especially when it comes to the security of Israel being placed into the hands of, well... not-Israel.
Conquering enemies went out of fashion somewhere between WWI and WWII...
I guess our neighbors didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War) get (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) the memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) on that.
Is [Gaza] an occupied territory, a semi-autonomous zone, a nation, or an occupied nation?
One may have been able to argue that Gaza was an "occupied territory" before 2005 (the term "disputed territory" is actually the precise legal term), but there has been no Israeli presence in there since then. Yet there have still been how many rockets fired at us from Gaza? Over 11,000 (http://www.idfblog.com/facts-figures/rocket-attacks-toward-israel/)? :-/
In addition : the claim that any nation would suffer severe hits to stability after refusing to respond to an attack, or loss of life by another aggressor is historically untrue. The United States has chosen not to respond militarily to quite a number of incidents in the past 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_%28AGER-2%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
Most notably, the last one involved the USSR shooting down a passenger jet carrying a US congressman. Not only did our failure to respond militarily to these events not doom our country's security, in several cases, defusing the situation was the overwhelmingly sane thing to do.
So much wrong with this comparison.
First off, you've got four incidents in 50 years. Perhaps there were more, I won't deny that. Were there 10,996 more incidents? I doubt it.
Secondly, 3 of the 4 incidents were against military targets, not civilian population centers.
Thirdly, all instances occurred beyond the national borders of the US. Israel is receiving rocket barrages on her sovereign territory.
Finally, none of those instances were continuous, repeated attacks that have been going on for years.
Historically earlier in their history Israel might have been able to claim the reverse, but for right now, the Palestinians have a better claim to say their right to exist is in danger.
Patently untrue:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btjd34CCMAIIO07.png)
Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that Israel's existence IS in imminent danger by homegrown rockets fired from Gaza - we're not quite that weak, regardless of any Hamas propaganda to the contrary. ;) What I'm saying is that if the violence against Israel comes to a screeching halt and does not resume, the Palestinians are more than welcome to live in peace, without fear of Israeli attack.
I'll end with this. The latest, humanitarian truce yesterday? It resulted in the death of one of my unit-mates (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4550437,00.html), Barak Degorker, by mortar fire from Gaza.
Some truce.
-
Well, I think that by this point nobody argues that Hamas has to go if there's to be a peace in the region. Those guys are tyrants, traitors and religious nuts to boot. If they didn't kept breaking their own ceasefires and treaties, there could be some hope of negotiating with them. That's why I'm saying that Hamas giving up and going for peace is unlikely. They don't care for their own people, for their country and are only interested in maintaining their own power. They're also past the "point of no return" (in that if they should back off, they'd fall apart and get no mercy or help from anyone) and they know it, so they'll fight until they're forcibly removed.
As for the UN conduct in the incident you mentioned, well, that's just a disgrace. Perhaps a "dedicated" mediation force specifically meant to solve this particular problem would do more, but I understand that this didn't help make calling on the UN seem like a good idea.
Perhaps the way to deal with Hamas would be to cooperate closely with the "other legitimate Palestinian government", i.e. whoever is ruling the West Bank. Currently that's Fatah, IIRC. I'm pretty convinced they could be reasoned with much easier. Handing over a few modern, Israeli-built settlements would certainly sweeten any deal made with them, that's for sure... Anyway, having struck a deal with them, they could claim Gaza as Palestinian territory and march in supported by Isreali troops and equipment. Following that, they should hunt down and arrest Hamas members as rebels and terrorists they are (they'd probably be executed later, but that's fine with me). Israel could then pull out after Fatah establishes it's own police and military presence. They could give them both humanitarian aid and money/supplies in order to both improve their image and maintain good relations with them.
Now, it's not like Fatah are saints, but they do seem less "kill and burn" oriented. They probably do have a few grievances with Isreal on their own (many of them probably legitimate), but compared to Hamas, they're a beacon of reason (not that it's saying much). The biggest problem is that from what I've seen, they're spineless and rather corrupt. Perhaps a new election is in order... Anyway, I believe that the best shot Israel has at peace is to create a strategic ally on the West Bank and then leverage this is to pacify Gaza.
-
http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/bring-israelis-palestinians/24316
-
Electing organisation which loudly proclaims to the World it wants to erase Israel = get a pass. Electing guy with dodgy views on events that happened decades ago = reprehensible!
Are we really going to hold the downtrodden and under-educated Palestinians to a standard that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to themselves?
You have literally done this by quoting that old comment. That comment was that I believe people should spoil ballots or write in a candidate rather than elect someone because they are the best of two dreadful candidates. But this is something that doesn't happen even in the Western world and you are basically condemning the Palestinians for not being the first people in history to ever do it.
I can't tell what you're saying... who has done what my quoting what? You mean Lorric quoting me? Please clarify.
I'll end with this. The latest, humanitarian truce yesterday? It resulted in the death of one of my unit-mates (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4550437,00.html), Barak Degorker, by mortar fire from Gaza.
Some truce.
So he was killed even though the fighting was supposed to be stopped? If there's a causal relationship between the truce and that guy's death, I'm not seeing it.
@Phantom Hoover: some description would be nice.
-
He's saying that the truce is a farce because Hamas is still lobbing **** anyway.
-
Well duh. But Sandwich said "It resulted in the death of one of my unit-mates, Barak Degorker". Farce or not, I don't see the causal relationship.
-
I can't tell what you're saying... who has done what my quoting what? You mean Lorric quoting me? Please clarify.
Don't worry about that. It had nothing to do with you.
-
Are the Hamas authorities actually in control of the people doing the fighting or is it more like they give suggestions?
-
...
First : am deeply sorry about your loss.
The official definition is still Occupied Territory, as per the UN. Israel wants to call it a disputed territory because the semantic difference is building settlements in a disputed territory isn't a Geneva Convention violation. Which is just my point. I think, the only way we're getting peace is with a third party guaranteeing the rights of the weaker party. In some means more toothed than the UN. They don't trust Israel, and evidence has sometimes shown that's not an entirely wrong belief for them to have.
Patently untrue:
I don't even need to try and debate the motivation differences for a cease fire. Just, a more simple question. Explain to me how breaking cease fire agreements erases the reality that Israel's military is one of the most powerful in the region, their covert operations capacity is world-class, and even today in the midst of this temporary condemnation, international opinion is still massively on their side.
Gaza has none of that, and no reason to trust the idea of "don't make any trouble and you'll be fine". Settlements continue to be made in the West Bank. The blockade is unlikely to be lifted without significant time spent without any shred of violence towards Israel (something, I imagine, that would be hard to Hamas to guarantee even if they agreed to it). I say that they're the ones facing a threat to existence because, given what we've see with Syria and Ukraine, Israel could very well annex the territory entirely, and the international community would issue a "stern condemnation" and nothing more.
You could say that these things just listed have reasons, and the Israelis are not necessarily wrong to do them. On some of the things, particularly the blockade, I could grudgingly agree with you. But it still doesn't change the fact that it gives the people in Gaza no reason to trust that they'll be ok. Hamas is horrible, but the fact that people still back them just goes to show you that they feel that Hamas is their *safest* bet for survival. That's wrong. Someone needs to fix that, if you did, Hamas would be gone in months.
EDIT:
So much wrong with this comparison.
People said many times in thread, without any qualifiers, that no nation could ever afford to not respond, because of the social contract of government. I showed that a nation safely didn't respond where they were called to do so. I agree that the examples need a bit more work for best results, but still, I feel i adequately responded to the point as originally stated.
-
I did like how many of those who jumped to the social contract to justify their position were self-described right-wingers. I guess it's not so unshakeable when you have to pay your taxes.
-
Well duh. But Sandwich said "It resulted in the death of one of my unit-mates, Barak Degorker". Farce or not, I don't see the causal relationship.
Perhaps he let his guard down because he thought Hamas would actually stop shooting. Or his superiors did, and posted him where he could be endangered, on assumption that he won't be, because of the truce. I suspect that something like this occurred. Indeed, this might've been the whole reason why Hamas agreed to it. To betray Israelis and score hits on some of the more trusting/idealistic ones. Hamas has no honor nor dignity, so it was to be expected that they would try something like that. They don't seem to be splintered or have an internal struggle for power going on, which is perhaps the only thing that would justify how the ceasefire went. They're just a bunch of traitorous bastards.
-
I did like how many of those who jumped to the social contract to justify their position were self-described right-wingers. I guess it's not so unshakeable when you have to pay your taxes.
Now this is patently false. I'm hardly conservative, and neither is MP-Ryan (I can't rightly speak for Mongoose). That's 90% by volume of the social contract discussion right there.
-
Interesting guy here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef
Now if we could get enough of his kind together and replace/overthrow Hamas...
Edit: a good quote from Mr. Yousef (who converted to Christianity) :
Religion steals freedom, kills creativity, turns us into slaves and against one another. Yes, I am talking about Christianity as well as Islam. Most Christians I have seen seem to have missed the point that Jesus redeemed us from religion. Religion is nothing but man's attempts to get back to God. Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, any ism. Religion can't save mankind.
:yes:
-
but they can't get rid of them because they're in power and staying that way through force of arms... a situation that every idiot Westerner, who has not one clue about history or geopolitics but gets outraged at Israel on the basis of body count, forcing Israels hand and playing precisely into Hamas tactics and agenda to begin with, perpetuates.
Armchair politics isn't going to affect crap, especially not whether Hamas continues to suppress voters.
And just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're stupid or ignorant. As an example: myself. I am not stupid, and contrary to whatever conclusions you may have reached in order to explain to yourself why I persist in disagreeing with you, I am not nearly as ignorant as you might believe. I have perfectly good reasons for disagreeing.
None of your reasons mean a thing to the larger picture; the longer that the West puts pressure on Israel to withdraw on the basis on complaints of their largely uninformed citizenry, the longer Hamas stays in powe in Gaza, and the longer the larger conflict continues with perpetually increasing body count. I repeat: Hamas now holds Gaza at the point of a gun. This will not change by internal forces alone. People who assert that Israel should not respond to what is, by its definition, terrorism against its residents by a group that holds its own residents at the point of a gun perpetually are part of the problem. If fewer deaths, both in the short or long term are what you're after, that requires the crippling of Hamas' ability to hit at Israel.
That's not a fair comparison. No citizens of Western countries have voted knowingly, into power, a party that refuses to recognize another country and has that other nation's destruction as a primary goal of the party organization.
1. They've not been in a position where they would have to recently. Are you seriously telling me you don't think it could happen again in the west?
2. Depends what you claim is a Western nation. Serbia for instance did exactly that.
1. It hasn't happened in over 100 years of Western democracy. It is similarly unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. Nor were Gazans forced to vote for Hamas.
2. Serbia is not a 'Western' nation. The term (at least in the modern geopolitical sense of the history of warfare) typically refers to the primary Western democracies who were not members of the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War.
Yes, Hamas probably seemed like the only viable alternative to Fatah. That said, they knew full well that Hamas was going to continue to strike at Israel, and they knew from history that they would use ordinary Gazans as shields. "Rock and a hard place" seems an apt description.
Which is kinda my point. Had Israel not systematically hobbled Fatah, Hamas wouldn't even be in a position of power now.
True; nevertheless, Gazans ultimately elected them, fully informed about what that would bring down on their heads. Nations are accountable for the governments they elect. You don't get to cede authority to someone knowing what they'll do with it, then absolve yourself of ceding power to them in the first place. It would be one thing if Hamas had renounced all forms of violence and recognized Israel prior to being elected, then turned around on that promise and started governing by force afterward, but that isn't what happened.
-
Just getting caught up here:
In addition : the claim that any nation would suffer severe hits to stability after refusing to respond to an attack, or loss of life by another aggressor is historically untrue. The United States has chosen not to respond militarily to quite a number of incidents in the past 50 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_%28AGER-2%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
Most notably, the last one involved the USSR shooting down a passenger jet carrying a US congressman. Not only did our failure to respond militarily to these events not doom our country's security, in several cases, defusing the situation was the overwhelmingly sane thing to do.
None of the incidents you've cited were direct and continuous attacks by a single, organized group against civilian targets in United States territories. All of the cited incidents were against military targets except for KAL, and KAL ultimately led to political changes in the USSR which, longer term, ultimately led to its collapse. KAL was also not an attack against a US civilian target, but rather a primarily Korean one.
Apples to oranges, in other words. Notably, the one attack by a listed terrorist organization that denies the right of the United States to even exist against civilians in American territory led to the invasion of two countries and one of the largest military operations since the Vietnam War. I'll note that, which is directly comparable, is excluded from your examples.
Thirdly. I, do not in any way celebrate Hamas's tactics, but as I think I saw Kara mention, the claim that all aggression has to stop from Gaza and things would be fine, seems... really shaky. Pragmatically, the Palestinians have next to no ability to exert political pressure on Israel in any other manner, and no guarantees of anything good happening for their side if they were to disarm. They'd have to remove their last remaining means of achieving local and international attention, on just the good faith that Israel would then deal with them, when the evidence so far to that indicates a less than optimistic picture of things.
Ah, so the pIRA was justified in civilian bombings in Northern Ireland and England because they had no ability to exter political pressure in any other real manner, and no good guarantees of disarmament?
Sorry, but this is a non-argument. Power imbalances do not justify the attempted mass murder of civilians if you can't get your way through diplomacy. This isn't some noble engagment of Hamas attacking Israeli military and government targets; this is hamas launching concerted and heavy rocket fire at civilian population centers intentionally.
You can say both sides have this issue of taking things on faith, but the difference is that if Israel was attacked in an overt fashion (i.e. the scenario painted that if not for the blockade, Palestinian forces could stream across the border into Israel, or the idea that an Israel that didn't power project would invite a massive attack by nearby Arab nations), not only can Israel expect some level of international assistance, they also arguably nowadays have such a powerful Military and Intelligence agency that they could win an extended fight like that. Iran is probably the only nation in the area that poses any threat to Israel, and Iran becoming involved would damn near guarantee the US would become involved militarily, and Iran is likely aware of this. Contrast that to the idea of Gaza taking things on faith and going completely disarmed. They'd be completely at the mercy of Israel, and the shaky hope that the only defense they'd have left would be the international community might help in time, something that seems less and less likely considering how little the international community has been willing to become involved in Syria or Ukraine.
In a scenario where Gaza posed no violent threat to Israel, international opinion and pressure would be overwhelmingly against Israel's treatment of the Gaza strip. They are, at this juncture, their own worst enemy. And again, the idea that only violence allows them to be heard or stand up against Israel is not only factually incorrect (as it worsens the situation; the blockade is only justified by arms intercepts), it's reprehensible from a human rights perspective as well.
Gaza has none of that, and no reason to trust the idea of "don't make any trouble and you'll be fine". Settlements continue to be made in the West Bank. The blockade is unlikely to be lifted without significant time spent without any shred of violence towards Israel (something, I imagine, that would be hard to Hamas to guarantee even if they agreed to it). I say that they're the ones facing a threat to existence because, given what we've see with Syria and Ukraine, Israel could very well annex the territory entirely, and the international community would issue a "stern condemnation" and nothing more.
Gaza and the West bank are different. Israel destroyed its settlements and withdrew entirely from Gaza before Hamas ever came to power. Israel has made concerted steps to disentangle itself from Gaza entirely; they want the territory, its people, and the inevitable headache that entails even less than they metaphorically want another hole in their head. If Israel had wanted to annex the Gaza strip, they would have unilaterally done so long since. The existential threat Gaza faces originates in the fact that they continue to target Israeli civilians. So long as that happens, the blockade will never be lifted and Gaza has no economic chances whatsoever.
-
None of your reasons mean a thing to the larger picture; the longer that the West puts pressure on Israel to withdraw on the basis on complaints of their largely uninformed citizenry, the longer Hamas stays in powe in Gaza, and the longer the larger conflict continues with perpetually increasing body count. I repeat: Hamas now holds Gaza at the point of a gun. This will not change by internal forces alone. People who assert that Israel should not respond to what is, by its definition, terrorism against its residents by a group that holds its own residents at the point of a gun perpetually are part of the problem. If fewer deaths, both in the short or long term are what you're after, that requires the crippling of Hamas' ability to hit at Israel.
A couple of issues here. First this:
that requires the crippling of Hamas' ability to hit at Israel.
Let me explain a little more of the rationale behind my "rate or volume of fire" hypothesis... If Hamas were smart, they wouldn't leave most of their arsenal sitting right next to the launch sites, because they know the launch sites are going to come under fire. They would only bring their rockets to the launch site when they're nearly ready to fire them, and they wouldn't bring more than they can fire in a short time. That way when Israel does counterattack, the airstrike at most takes out a handful of personnel, some reusable launch equipment, and a handful of rockets, while the majority of the their arsenal remains safe underground.
So if Hamas was playing smart, the counterattack wouldn't have had much effect. Maybe the attrition of personnel and reusable launch equipment makes the difference?
It would be nice if someone could get some numbers for how many personnel, rockets, etc., they had, how much was destroyed by the airstrike, and how much they managed to launch anyway. It would've potentially been a good way to shut me up many pages ago, but nobody could or would bother to contest my hypothesis.
and then this:
the longer that the West puts pressure on Israel to withdraw on the basis on complaints of their largely uninformed citizenry, the longer Hamas stays in powe in Gaza, and the longer the larger conflict continues with perpetually increasing body count.
I, for one, have no objection to the current ground push, if Israel actually goes as far as it needs to go to thoroughly purge Hamas. Ground forces are much better at avoiding collateral damage, infantry especially so. My objection is and was to the initial airstrikes, on the as-yet-uncontested presumption that without them, instead of a 194:1 civilian death toll, there would have been a 0:x death toll, where x is less than 195.
Or, alternatively, they could've started with the ground push immediately. Maybe the airstrikes helped "soften up" the area to make the ground push safer? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe my saying it here is the first time anyone in this thread has suggested that hypothesis.
-
That's basic common sense military strategy 101 so why bother even mention it?
-
You are referring to the air strikes "softening up" the area? Then no, just because an airstrike can be used to soften up an area does not necessarily mean that was part of the airstrike's intended purpose.
-
The purpose of immediate retaliatory airstrikes / missile strikes is to take out launch crews, equipment, and deter rapid-launch attacks from the same physical site. It takes time and effort to set up the rocket launch equipment; hitting the site immediately after a launch increases the chances of wiping out the launch crew and equipment, and preventing Hamas from trying to launch again from the same site moments later. From what I know of the rocket tech, it's much faster to launch multiple rockets from the same pre-set location than to constantly set up at new sites. If they didn't hit those sites, the rate of fire could go up dramatically.
-
Just getting caught up here:
...
None of the incidents you've cited were direct and continuous attacks by a single, organized group against civilian targets in United States territories. All of the cited incidents were against military targets except for KAL, and KAL ultimately led to political changes in the USSR which, longer term, ultimately led to its collapse. KAL was also not an attack against a US civilian target, but rather a primarily Korean one.
Apples to oranges, in other words. Notably, the one attack by a listed terrorist organization that denies the right of the United States to even exist against civilians in American territory led to the invasion of two countries and one of the largest military operations since the Vietnam War. I'll note that, which is directly comparable, is excluded from your examples.
Acceptable enough, I'll focus on other points.
...
Ah, so the pIRA was justified in civilian bombings in Northern Ireland and England because they had no ability to exter political pressure in any other real manner, and no good guarantees of disarmament?
Sorry, but this is a non-argument. Power imbalances do not justify the attempted mass murder of civilians if you can't get your way through diplomacy. This isn't some noble engagement of Hamas attacking Israeli military and government targets; this is hamas launching concerted and heavy rocket fire at civilian population centers intentionally.
Please explain what other means they have. The only argument offered so far as been "if you are peaceful, everything would be fine", which is still unlikely considering that Israel can't even play nice with the West Bank. Overall, The sad reality that the peace process has been utterly stalled until now, to the point where a number of US administrations since Clinton have implied or outright asserted that Israel is slowing down the peace process.
You can say both sides have this issue of taking things on faith, but the difference is that if Israel was attacked in an overt fashion (i.e. the scenario painted that if not for the blockade, Palestinian forces could stream across the border into Israel, or the idea that an Israel that didn't power project would invite a massive attack by nearby Arab nations), not only can Israel expect some level of international assistance, they also arguably nowadays have such a powerful Military and Intelligence agency that they could win an extended fight like that. Iran is probably the only nation in the area that poses any threat to Israel, and Iran becoming involved would damn near guarantee the US would become involved militarily, and Iran is likely aware of this. Contrast that to the idea of Gaza taking things on faith and going completely disarmed. They'd be completely at the mercy of Israel, and the shaky hope that the only defense they'd have left would be the international community might help in time, something that seems less and less likely considering how little the international community has been willing to become involved in Syria or Ukraine.
In a scenario where Gaza posed no violent threat to Israel, international opinion and pressure would be overwhelmingly against Israel's treatment of the Gaza strip. They are, at this juncture, their own worst enemy. And again, the idea that only violence allows them to be heard or stand up against Israel is not only factually incorrect (as it worsens the situation; the blockade is only justified by arms intercepts), it's reprehensible from a human rights perspective as well.
Gaza has none of that, and no reason to trust the idea of "don't make any trouble and you'll be fine". Settlements continue to be made in the West Bank. The blockade is unlikely to be lifted without significant time spent without any shred of violence towards Israel (something, I imagine, that would be hard to Hamas to guarantee even if they agreed to it). I say that they're the ones facing a threat to existence because, given what we've see with Syria and Ukraine, Israel could very well annex the territory entirely, and the international community would issue a "stern condemnation" and nothing more.
Gaza and the West bank are different. Israel destroyed its settlements and withdrew entirely from Gaza before Hamas ever came to power. Israel has made concerted steps to disentangle itself from Gaza entirely; they want the territory, its people, and the inevitable headache that entails even less than they metaphorically want another hole in their head. If Israel had wanted to annex the Gaza strip, they would have unilaterally done so long since. The existential threat Gaza faces originates in the fact that they continue to target Israeli civilians. So long as that happens, the blockade will never be lifted and Gaza has no economic chances whatsoever.
Just going to go with the rest of this at once:
The West Bank is linked to Gaza in that any competing political forces to Hamas in Gaza look to that as an example of what peaceful negotiations can bring, and while life is better than it is in Gaza, you still have what is a pretty unacceptable situation for the Palestinians. Settlements are still being built (violation of GCIV, which Israel is a signatory to), the PNA is no closer to peace than it was a decade ago, and there's still repeated accusations of human rights violations by the Israelis in the West Bank.
Israel has not backpedaled on much of anything related to the peace process or international law violations despite repeated criticism from the UN and international community in general. I really can't see international pressure being much of a threat. Even in the present situation, the international pressure is so lukewarm that Israel feels fine continuing.
I get that the situation is complicated, targeting civilians is bad, Hamas is bad, and hell, the PNA even is pretty bad (more than some of the human rights violations in the West Bank are carried out by the local government). The thing what really most "pro-Palestinian" voices in this discussion are saying is that Israel is also pretty bad, and the only thing this current operation is likely to accomplish is killing a lot of people in Gaza.
Its unfair to have to negotiate with terrorists, but considering that Hamas still holds Gaza despite how bad it is to live in Gaza, you either have to negotiate, invite 3rd party forces in, or be willing to accept increasing the suffering much much more, before anything meaningful can happen. Israel is being told to withdraw because citizens are *informed* : the most they can do is setback the efforts against them in Gaza, and the loss of life and political enmity this is creating far outweighs those benefits.
In short : If there was a playbook for "take out hostile terrorist forces without killing a ton of civilians", the last 40 some years of history for many countries would have gone differently.
-
If there were some numbers available, for how many Hamas personnel/equipment/munitions have been confirmed destroyed by the initial airstrikes, and comparison to how many they started with, that would be great.
-
If there were some numbers available, for how many Hamas personnel/equipment/munitions have been confirmed destroyed by the initial airstrikes, and comparison to how many they started with, that would be great.
Granted, it'd be useful, but how do you confirm counts of what should be hidden personnel and equipment? It's easy to say how much you've captured/destroyed/killed, hard to say how much is there. Most they could probably do is base some numbers off of historical counts of how many rockets Gaza's launched before/after counterstrikes.
-
Please explain what other means they have. The only argument offered so far as been "if you are peaceful, everything would be fine", which is still unlikely considering that Israel can't even play nice with the West Bank. Overall, The sad reality that the peace process has been utterly stalled until now, to the point where a number of US administrations since Clinton have implied or outright asserted that Israel is slowing down the peace process.
You mistake my point. It doesn't matter if they have no other means. Intentionally targeting civilians with violence and death to make a political point is, by definition, terrorism, and is never acceptable. That word - terrrorism - gets bandied about a lot since 2001, but I - and at least several others around here - am old enough to remember what the definition of that word actually means and the types of people who engaged in it, and Hamas is a classic example. Violence toward civilian populations is not an acceptable tactic to further political goals, period. If you think Hamas is in any way justified in using violence in this way to make their point, we had might as well end the argument here because that position is so fundamentally at odds with the principles of human rights, liberty, and international law that I am not going to debate it further.
Just going to go with the rest of this at once:
The West Bank is linked to Gaza in that any competing political forces to Hamas in Gaza look to that as an example of what peaceful negotiations can bring, and while life is better than it is in Gaza, you still have what is a pretty unacceptable situation for the Palestinians. Settlements are still being built (violation of GCIV, which Israel is a signatory to), the PNA is no closer to peace than it was a decade ago, and there's still repeated accusations of human rights violations by the Israelis in the West Bank.
Israel has not backpedaled on much of anything related to the peace process or international law violations despite repeated criticism from the UN and international community in general. I really can't see international pressure being much of a threat. Even in the present situation, the international pressure is so lukewarm that Israel feels fine continuing.
I get that the situation is complicated, targeting civilians is bad, Hamas is bad, and hell, the PNA even is pretty bad (more than some of the human rights violations in the West Bank are carried out by the local government). The thing what really most "pro-Palestinian" voices in this discussion are saying is that Israel is also pretty bad, and the only thing this current operation is likely to accomplish is killing a lot of people in Gaza.
Its unfair to have to negotiate with terrorists, but considering that Hamas still holds Gaza despite how bad it is to live in Gaza, you either have to negotiate, invite 3rd party forces in, or be willing to accept increasing the suffering much much more, before anything meaningful can happen. Israel is being told to withdraw because citizens are *informed* : the most they can do is setback the efforts against them in Gaza, and the loss of life and political enmity this is creating far outweighs those benefits.
In short : If there was a playbook for "take out hostile terrorist forces without killing a ton of civilians", the last 40 some years of history for many countries would have gone differently.
You do not negotiate while a terrorist organization is slinging rockets at civilian centers. It's a PR victory for Hamas, and it gains them further support, undermining the overall peace process as well. This is what a fair number of people do not understand here - I don't like seeing dead Gazan civilians any more than you do. However, giving Hamas any kind of victory, incentives, or concessions to have them cease fire is a recipe for MORE dead civilians on both sides, not fewer. If Hamas starts launching rockets at Israel's civilian population, and Israel and the international community not only stop shooting back but say "OK, here, you can have this and this and this..." what has Hamas learned? That terrorism gets you what you want. What will they do in a few weeks/months/years when they want something more? More rockets.
Hamas cannot benefit from firing on civilians. Unfortunately, you, Aardwolf, a number of others here, and altogether too much of the international community are willing to let exactly that happen, and in the greater calculus that is a recipe for more carnage, not less.
-
Please explain what other means they have. The only argument offered so far as been "if you are peaceful, everything would be fine", which is still unlikely considering that Israel can't even play nice with the West Bank. Overall, The sad reality that the peace process has been utterly stalled until now, to the point where a number of US administrations since Clinton have implied or outright asserted that Israel is slowing down the peace process.
You mistake my point. It doesn't matter if they have no other means. Intentionally targeting civilians with violence and death to make a political point is, by definition, terrorism, and is never acceptable. That word - terrrorism - gets bandied about a lot since 2001, but I - and at least several others around here - am old enough to remember what the definition of that word actually means and the types of people who engaged in it, and Hamas is a classic example. Violence toward civilian populations is not an acceptable tactic to further political goals, period. If you think Hamas is in any way justified in using violence in this way to make their point, we had might as well end the argument here because that position is so fundamentally at odds with the principles of human rights, liberty, and international law that I am not going to debate it further.
...
You do not negotiate while a terrorist organization is slinging rockets at civilian centers. It's a PR victory for Hamas, and it gains them further support, undermining the overall peace process as well. This is what a fair number of people do not understand here - I don't like seeing dead Gazan civilians any more than you do. However, giving Hamas any kind of victory, incentives, or concessions to have them cease fire is a recipe for MORE dead civilians on both sides, not fewer. If Hamas starts launching rockets at Israel's civilian population, and Israel and the international community not only stop shooting back but say "OK, here, you can have this and this and this..." what has Hamas learned? That terrorism gets you what you want. What will they do in a few weeks/months/years when they want something more? More rockets.
Hamas cannot benefit from firing on civilians. Unfortunately, you, Aardwolf, a number of others here, and altogether too much of the international community are willing to let exactly that happen, and in the greater calculus that is a recipe for more carnage, not less.
Israel does not even have to negotiate with Hamas. Israel does have to demonstrate that they are willing to negotiate with someone. There is a supposedly Israel approved (in a relative sense) separate Palestinian government in the West Bank. They need to do something to show that peaceful negotiations are fruitful, which they've yet to do. Split them in two, tell the PNA they're willing to make meaningful deals and compromises, on the condition that they renounce any ties to Hamas. And then follow through if the other side takes the bait. It'd do wonders to the process. No negotiating with terrorists needed. At the very damn least stop building settlements in the West Bank, not only is it illegal, it's a clear demonstration that the peace process isn't being taken seriously, whether intended as such or not.
Also as to the other part : Desperate people are on their last legs, they take desperate, often tragic and deplorable actions, but they do it because they at least believe they have nothing left. I really don't think it's so controversial to say "if there's no other means, let the blood run." Just about every person is born wanting to live, and be free. They may learn to care about other people and be good and just, but still, they want to act out that first drive. While I will still fight back, I can't really fault someone for trying to make a future for themselves and their family. Remember the joke, one of the many battle victories for the US during the revolutionary war boils down to "cross the river and kill the enemy in their sleep on Christmas"
I actually believe you might die for your principles if a situation came up, you're a very moral and respectable person and one of the people I always await the responses for in this forum. I just... don't know if I could do the same. And I don't think I could expect an entire population to.
EDIT: wanted to rework points a bit. sorry
-
THis popped up in my FB feed today (http://www.alternet.org/world/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked?page=0%2C0). It's interesting, as it does contain a rebuttal to most of the arguments represented here. Esp interesting was the Dahiya doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine), but I do recommend you to read all of the article.
-
THis popped up in my FB feed today (http://www.alternet.org/world/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked?page=0%2C0). It's interesting, as it does contain a rebuttal to most of the arguments represented here. Esp interesting was the Dahiya doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine), but I do recommend you to read all of the article.
I haven't read it all yet, but just looking at the other headlines on the site and the author's bio makes me suspect the 'facts' presented in this article are going to have some significant spin.
Just her point 1 about the occupation is shaky:
As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.
Israel doesn't occupy the Gaza territory or usurp its government. Israel and Egypt blockade Gaza's borders and control its airspace. Gaza itself is self-governed by Hamas.
-
Israel and Egypt blockade Gaza's borders and control its airspace.
Her line of reasoning is that having that giant fence there, controlling anything that goes in and out of it and shooting people who come close to it also counts as an occupation (and the west bank is defenitily occupied, and stuff happened there as well).
I haven't read it all yet, but just looking at the other headlines on the site and the author's bio makes me suspect the 'facts' presented in this article are going to have some significant spin.
Indeed, but for the sake of the discussion, please treat the arguments as if they are my own. Although I get your whole social contract arguments, there are still quite a few aspects of the whole Israel-Palestina conflict which I can not put my finger on (esp. when it concerns the west bank), some of which are represented there.
-
I agree, this article sums up a lot of the reasons I still just cannot take pro-Israeli arguments seriously.
-
I agree, this article sums up a lot of the reasons I still just cannot take pro-Israeli arguments seriously.
I don't go that far.
-
Ali A. Rizvi on the subject, so really good you gotta read it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html
-
1. It hasn't happened in over 100 years of Western democracy. It is similarly unlikely to happen in the forseeable future.
Which Western nation has been in the same situation as Palestine then?
It hasn't happened cause the conditions haven't occurred to allow it to happen. I pointed to Serbia as an example of it happening in the closest I could think of to a Western nation in the same situation.
But let's take a step away from the nitpicking and let me get to the crux of my argument. I believe it is morally reprehensible to point at the civilians of Gaza as somehow "deserving it for electing Hamas" But let's leave the morality alone for a bit.
You have yourself pointed out repeatedly that Hamas hold Gaza by force. The last election was in 2006. It has now been 8 years since the election of Hamas. Pretty much any democracy would already have given the people a chance to vote Hamas out. Many would have already given them two. At what point exactly do you stop considering Hamas to have been elected by the people? If not already, when?
-
Hamas in fairness had to wait 10 years between the previous election and their election. I'm not expecting them to hold an election in 2 years, but I just thought I'd add that.
When a clear message is sent out that Palestinians don't want Hamas is when to consider Hamas is no longer wanted by the people imo. If Palestine goes the way of other "Arab Spring" nations, or even if you just get mass protests. Any way where it is made patently obvious that Hamas is no longer wanted by the Palestinian people.
-
Ali A. Rizvi on the subject, so really good you gotta read it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html
That is a much better piece from a factual perspective, and has the added bonus of mirroring my sentiments almost exactly.
-
You have yourself pointed out repeatedly that Hamas hold Gaza by force. The last election was in 2006. It has now been 8 years since the election of Hamas. Pretty much any democracy would already have given the people a chance to vote Hamas out. Many would have already given them two. At what point exactly do you stop considering Hamas to have been elected by the people? If not already, when?
I think I've been pretty clear in indicating that Hamas is the problem, that they do not have majority support in Gaza, and that they hold the territory purely by force of arms. My point of contention with you was the comparison to Western voters - because unlike Gaza, no Western country has ever voted for a government that wants to wipe another country or group off the map, regardless of their circumstances. However, a majority in Gaza knew what Hamas was all about before they gained power and voted them in anyway; those Gazans who did vote for them and especially those who continue to support them today (37% or so in the last scientific poll I saw) bear partial moral responsibility for the death toll in Gaza itself.
To use an analogy: You're an impoverished person with a very rich, powerful neighbour and you have a dispute over property where he claims he owns 6 feet of your side of the fence (while you claim that all the property was originally yours and he and his ilk forced you out). meanwhile, he makes it so you can't get a job, can't improve your property, and can get anything more than the most basic substinence goods. You can choose one of only two sleazy lawyers to represent you: the first will overcharge and swindle you. The second runs a gang of organized thugs that hate the rich and tells you they are going to make your neighbour move by beating him up and harassing him. You go with option 2 because you haven't gotten results with option 1. The thugs go over, cause havoc, and the neighbour gets upset, grabs his bodyguards, and chases them. They run back over your fence and stand behind you, while your neighbour and his bodyguards thump you while they try to get to the thugs standing behind you. You were a victim to begin with, but are you really blameless in the inevitable consequences when you knew what was going to happen up front? I can certainly empathize with your situation, but I think you share the blame.
-
Ali A. Rizvi on the subject, so really good you gotta read it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html
That is a much better piece from a factual perspective, and has the added bonus of mirroring my sentiments almost exactly.
Well well well.
I actually fully agree with the whole thing as well. I do feel that point 7 should have been brought up a bit more in this discussion.
-
Ali A. Rizvi on the subject, so really good you gotta read it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html
That is a much better piece from a factual perspective, and has the added bonus of mirroring my sentiments almost exactly.
Well well well.
I actually fully agree with the whole thing as well. I do feel that point 7 should have been brought up a bit more in this discussion.
I like it too. I also encourage others to read it.
The comments section is all over the place. So many completely different reactions to the article.
-
I think I've been pretty clear in indicating that Hamas is the problem, that they do not have majority support in Gaza, and that they hold the territory purely by force of arms. My point of contention with you was the comparison to Western voters - because unlike Gaza, no Western country has ever voted for a government that wants to wipe another country or group off the map, regardless of their circumstances.
And my point is that is a rather silly point to make given that no Western country has ever been in the same position as Gaza.
However, a majority in Gaza knew what Hamas was all about before they gained power and voted them in anyway; those Gazans who did vote for them and especially those who continue to support them today (37% or so in the last scientific poll I saw) bear partial moral responsibility for the death toll in Gaza itself.
And I haven't denied that they bear partial responsibility for their stupid, stupid decision. As do Israel for putting them in that position in the first place.
-
The comments section is all over the place. So many completely different reactions to the article.
Yeah well, what isn't all over the place in the longest lasting conflict in human memory?
-
The comments section is all over the place. So many completely different reactions to the article.
Yeah well, what isn't all over the place in the longest lasting conflict in human memory?
Um...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War
But I do of course see your point.
-
I should have said "Living memory" shouldn't I? :nervous:
-
Lorric, this particular fight has been going since literally biblical times. I think it wins that contest. :P
-
There has been conflict there, perhaps, but not the same conflict. Islam wasn't even around for another 600 years after Jebus.
Edit: inb4 "the races are older than the religions"
-
Yeahsrsly, trying to frame this conflict as more than 60 years old at all is stupid enough but saying it goes back into prehistory is misrepresentative to an offensive extreme.
Same goes for Luis' article claiming it really is about religion in the end. Both religions have scriptures that promote expansionism? Well no ****! All religions have something like that lying around that you can cherrypick; it's meaningless, though, because different cultures within a religion will happily decide which bits of scripture they choose to express. Religion is just one factor in group/faction identification in these conflicts, which are perfectly capable of existing with no significant religious divide. It just gets singled out because it paints an awfully romantic narrative.
-
Same goes for Luis' article claiming it really is about religion in the end.
It would really help if you actually read **** before spewing your opinion about it. Like, just saying.
-
You mean things like relativistic physics?
-
Problem is that the "Middle East" has been a clashing point between different cultures, religions, and ideas for several thousand years. Each civilization comes and goes in this region like how the first primitive city-states arose, the first regional empires evolved, and were in turn overrun or conquered by a new or resurgent civilization. Ironically, these "clashes" have formed much of the bedrock of what take for granted in "Liberal" western civilization.
My only real complaint is that it's not simply religion that's at the heart of the current conflict, but rather a struggle simply to exist. Hamas continues to fight because if not, it would simply cease to exist and be usurped by another force. The current Israeli government wouldn't have something to shoot at and put their fancy toys to use. I've simply concluded this is Hamas fighting for a shadow, a meaningless existence, with no regard or upward purpose beyond clinging to any form of relevance.
And sadly, these are some of the most savage forces that refuse to pass on.
-
THis popped up in my FB feed today (http://www.alternet.org/world/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked?page=0%2C0). It's interesting, as it does contain a rebuttal to most of the arguments represented here. Esp interesting was the Dahiya doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine), but I do recommend you to read all of the article.
I haven't read it all yet, but just looking at the other headlines on the site and the author's bio makes me suspect the 'facts' presented in this article are going to have some significant spin.
Just her point 1 about the occupation is shaky:
As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.
Israel doesn't occupy the Gaza territory or usurp its government. Israel and Egypt blockade Gaza's borders and control its airspace. Gaza itself is self-governed by Hamas.
The legal definition by international bodies is that Gaza and the West Bank are occupied territories, with the occupying power as Israel. While I agree that alternet has had a lot of heavily biased articles on Middle East and Eastern European affairs recently, this is a point that can be accurately claimed, unless someone has information saying the International Court has made a second, newer ruling on this matter.
Similarly, I've heard other people make similarly good arguments on the author's third point. Particularly with brother's keeper. You cannot take a situation with limited proof of guilt, arrest hundreds of people, and expect it to not be taken as a serious provocation. While the boy that got burned to death makes a good rallying call, I imagine the mass arrests of Hamas aligned individuals is what really got them going.
The ending of the article is the most inflammatory stretching things part. And #5 is iffy at best. While there is the complication of "Gaza is incredibly densely populated territory and there aren't vast fields in which to setup rocket launchers unmolested," I'm willing to believe they at least set up sites near civilian targets intentionally. Although I also believe Israel isn't doing the best job in reducing causalities, given the reports of airstrikes hitting places that blatantly have no military targets.
-
I am utterly suprised by the IDF bombing UN schools 0_o. That doesn't help anyone in any way.
-
hamas was hiding under the textbooks
-
Research = they were misfired Hamas rockets, iirc.
-
Research = they were misfired Hamas rockets, iirc.
That's the Israeli story on the previous UN school bombing. The more recent one Israel has admitted that they attacked the building itself.
-
And my point is that is a rather silly point to make given that no Western country has ever been in the same position as Gaza.
Then why did you make it in the first place? See: Are we really going to hold the downtrodden and under-educated Palestinians to a standard that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to themselves?
You can't even make the comparison in the first place, as you've just acknowledged, because you can't say that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to that standard. This is why I took issue with your original statement.
And I haven't denied that they bear partial responsibility for their stupid, stupid decision. As do Israel for putting them in that position in the first place.
Fair enough.
-
You can't even make the comparison in the first place, as you've just acknowledged, because you can't say that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to that standard. This is why I took issue with your original statement.
Because were the western nations in the same place they would make the same decisions. There are numerous examples of better informed people choosing to elect scumbags. But we don't hold the people anywhere near as responsible for the actions of their governments as we do in the case of the Palestinians.
-
Indeed. Sometimes, it comes down to choice between "useless scumbag", "spineless thief", "clueless, well meaning dolt" and "scumbag with an idea and strength to make it work". Which one would you pick? Oh, and protesting would get you shot, and you can't just GTFO from the country for whatever reason, so you're out of 3rd options, too. Hamas, at the time, probably seemed like the lesser evil, at least as far as Palestinian interests were concerned. Also, many Palestinians probably thought "Oh, well, they'll get rid of Israel, win back our land, then we'll be able to un-elect them if they don't behave afterwards". In most cases, an elected government, no matter how shoddy, does only last a single term, so it's not an invalid way of thinking. Though in that case, Hamas had other plans...
-
Pretty much. As well as the perception that Hamas gets results to a certain extent.
People want leadership, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
Unfortunately killing more people and blowing up more buildings fits into the speeches Hamas is already making. It may not immediately get them groundswells of support, but it's certainly not hurting their position.
The only way to dismantle something like this is to show people that there is another option. Which is partly on the Palestinians to field more moderate groups, but at the same time, they need an environment where more moderate groups will be able to get any results.
-
Unfortunately killing more people and blowing up more buildings fits into the speeches Hamas is already making. It may not immediately get them groundswells of support, but it's certainly not hurting their position.
Which is more than you can say about most Western politicians. :) Say what you will about Hamas, but at least they're consistent in their politics and quite honest about what they're about. Perhaps this is also a factor giving them popular support. People might not like Hamas much, but anyone new would be completely unknown. For all they know, the new party might turn out even worse than Hamas or sell them out to Israel for a bag of money and a safe trip to the place of their choice. Middle East is rife with corruption, though Hamas is no exception, it's also not the worst offender.
I agree that more moderate groups are needed in Palestine. The problem is twofold: 1). there's a crisis going on, which naturally makes people tend towards extremes. 2). Hamas is actively suppressing any other attempts to form any other "party", moderate or not. Remember, despite the popular support, they do still hold the people by their throats. The first problem could be solved by Israel actively attempting to relax pressure on Gaza and increase humanitarian aid, the latter would be much more difficult, since Hamas isn't exactly the kind to peacefully give up power.
-
Yeah Hamas is kind of trying to make peace impossible for the next few generations:
-
hamas confirmed as puppetmasters behind entire middle east, news at 11
-
Haha. Radical (violent flavors of) Islam, maybe.
-
Yeah Hamas is kind of trying to make peace impossible for the next few generations:
*snip*
Yep. Like I said pages and pages ago, the Palestinian/Islamic culture of incitement, hatred, and death needs to stop before anything resembling a real peace can be achieved.
Speaking of going back a few pages:
Please explain what other means they have. The only argument offered so far as been "if you are peaceful, everything would be fine", which is still unlikely considering that Israel can't even play nice with the West Bank.
The West Bank is not the example for Gaza.
Gaza is the example for the West Bank.
The West Bank has had the same status quo ever since 1967 - deadlock, nothing changed, etc. The Gaza Strip, however, was the test tube. What happens if Israel unilaterally (i.e. on her own accord, without any obligation from the other party) pulls out of a disputed territory and gives the Palestinians there completely free reign? First, they fought amongst themselves. Then they elected a terrorist organization into power. Then they went ahead and began launching rockets at our cities, and they've been doing so for 9 years.
So if Abbas has any brains, it'll be patently obvious to him that violent resistance ala Hamas in Gaza is pointless, and that negotiations - without those inane preconditions he's so fond of! - are the only way forward.
Anyway, on to more interesting items.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10518711_10152667815002784_8799190422330288019_n.jpg?oh=e239a92a455c4f2ed504fbd0ee7b6b9a&oe=54523867&__gda__=1413810801_6df32cab1d498daa024bbc4ee2c7f86c)
-
Is that supposed to apply to anyone here?
-
I believe Mr. Neuer fails to take into account the fact that there's never been a thread about any of those incidents in which one might expect any amount of support for them or which would be read by people who would support them. :doubt:
I wonder if there's a name for that fallacy, seeing how commonly it's used.
-
We need a subsection of General Discussion :
Current Events
:nod:
-
Anyway, on to more interesting items.
*snip*
Well, I assure you that people did cry out when those happened, too. I wholeheartedly supported Libyan rebels and the resistance in Syria. I do not support some things Americans are and were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, either. Just about everyone who ever set foot in the region has blood on their hands. And it doesn't make what's happening in Gaza justified, better or anything. Nobody said Gaza is the only thing deserving condemnation in the Middle East. I'd also add terrible treatment of people in general by their governments, horrible working conditions, lack of education, poverty and rampant corruption.
-
jesus christ sandwich if you want people to support israel maybe stop this racist, neo-colonialist, outright denialist bull**** first
If Israel's best defence of its actions is to compare them favourably to those of tinpot dictatorships and random militants and terrorists, then fine. Good job Sandwich! You're better than Assad and Bin Laden. Great ****ing job.
-
Well, remember that it could be worse. Israel could be just as bad as them. :) To it's credit, it managed not to sink down to the level of it's neighbors. This could have easily happened, especially since Israel has it's share of extremists, too. Also, while people certainly remember the Holocaust, they only seem to see it as a thing that happened to them. One must remember that Nazis were human as well, and that if the Israelis are not careful this could happen again, only this time by their own hands. The Nazis did not invent tyranny, genocide or any of the atrocities they committed. Begin Germans, they perfected them from the technological side, but that's all. Anyone could do it, given enough bigotry and hatred.
The whole idea of Israel being a "Jewish state" sounds fishy to me. It should just be a state, one where Arabs, Jews, Christians and even Pastafaranists could live peacefully. I only accept religious discrimination against Scientology, and that's a special case. :) Others can be "Muslim states" if they want, but they'll be the ones in the wrong then. If the place becomes primarily Arab through immigration, that's fine, as long the government keeps being modern and progressive. Sticking a "Jewish state", in the middle of a mostly Arab area is never going to get fully accepted. However, sticking a democratic, free state in which a lot of Jews happen to live could work.
-
I agree with Phantom Hoover here, but there's something else here in motion wherein Sandwhich has a small point as well. We should all remember all the riots in Europe happening regarding what Israel is doing in Gaza. Which, of course, is going way overboard (proving yet once again that the hard line right wing policies of SHOCK AND AWE terror war is exactly what we all knew it was already, namely bloody, criminal, terroristic, etc.,etc.), but what about the riots over what ISIS is doing? Any demonstrations over what Assad did in Syria? Where are the solidarity protests over what is going on in Iraq, Lybia? Where is the popular outrage over the **** that is going on in Egypt?
All ****ing silent over this. And no, I'm not speaking about us people in the internets or forums or whatever. I'm speaking about coordinated protests on the streets, movements, and so on. All these coordinated events only point against Israel. Well while I would agree with them that Israel is behaving on the wrong side of the moral line here, I'm extremely cynical and unsympathetic towards these protesters and movements that rail against Israel and for Palestine. They don't give a **** about human lives, they do give a **** about Israel though, in the worst sense.
-
The fact remains that there are very valid and very serious criticisms of Israel's behaviour, and the default reaction, in this thread and elsewhere, has been to derail them with various flavours of whataboutism.
-
I think in this case the whataboutisms are actually important and relevant. To portray the Gaza palestinians as this wretched persecuted people by the Israelis also seems to miss a lot about history lessons and so on. I mean, it's not as if the palestinians are without any neighbour arab states where they could move and live their lives exactly on their own terms and be surrounded by people who share their culture and beliefs.
Israel simply cannot state the same thing.
-
For someone who ostensibly isn't pro-Israeli Luis you do spend an awful lot of time defending everything they do.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10518711_10152667815002784_8799190422330288019_n.jpg?oh=e239a92a455c4f2ed504fbd0ee7b6b9a&oe=54523867&__gda__=1413810801_6df32cab1d498daa024bbc4ee2c7f86c)
(https://smileyshack.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/sbiting_100-1081.gif)
Now of course that doesn't mean we can't talk about it and I don't think Sandwich was implying anything of the sort. Especially when he started the thread, the thread has been civilised, and he was and still is happy to engage in the discussion. It's just pointing out the way Israel is unfairly singled out, and indeed I fully agree if someone has nothing to say about all those other atrocities but is happy to go in on Israel, they are indeed anti-Israel. I am absolutely confident it's not directed specifically at anyone here. It's something to make you think. A poweful message that he wanted to share. Obviously if I'm wrong about any of this, he can correct me. But that's the impression I got, and I read it before I read any of the posts following it.
-
I agree with Phantom Hoover here, but there's something else here in motion wherein Sandwhich has a small point as well. We should all remember all the riots in Europe happening regarding what Israel is doing in Gaza. Which, of course, is going way overboard (proving yet once again that the hard line right wing policies of SHOCK AND AWE terror war is exactly what we all knew it was already, namely bloody, criminal, terroristic, etc.,etc.), but what about the riots over what ISIS is doing? Any demonstrations over what Assad did in Syria? Where are the solidarity protests over what is going on in Iraq, Lybia? Where is the popular outrage over the **** that is going on in Egypt?
All ****ing silent over this. And no, I'm not speaking about us people in the internets or forums or whatever. I'm speaking about coordinated protests on the streets, movements, and so on. All these coordinated events only point against Israel. Well while I would agree with them that Israel is behaving on the wrong side of the moral line here, I'm extremely cynical and unsympathetic towards these protesters and movements that rail against Israel and for Palestine. They don't give a **** about human lives, they do give a **** about Israel though, in the worst sense.
I think it's very interesting how, when it comes to perceived injustices, people generally seem to have a strong response to some things and less so to others, even if they're just as bad or the one you have a stronger reaction to is less bad. It's something that I've incredibly rarely seen discussed from the PoV of (serious) psychology, even though it clearly seems like a key factor for example in political partisanship.
I think people protest when they have an emotional reaction to something, and which things people learn to have or not have an emotional reaction towards is a really complicated process, and probably really rare and difficult to unlearn. It's also bit of a taboo; you generally can't go and admit that you're horrified by A but not B if B is just as bad or worse, because that's only going to get used against you. Everyone knows the feeling of reading of an injustice that really makes your blood boil or depresses you, and how some arguably worse things don't have anywhere near the same kind of effect because you just don't get that emotional response from them, but saying how this or that terrible thing doesn't really affect you is rather socially unacceptable and tends to immediately be seen as the same thing as saying that it's a non-issue.
That said, I don't think it has anything to do with whether one's protestations are genuine or not. If someone doesn't feel terrible about A but does about B and therefore directs their attention only at B, then sure it's hilariously difficult to just ignore that apparent inconsistency if you are horrified about A yourself, but ultimately the fact that A doesn't give them sleepless nights isn't really their choice and doesn't affect whether they're right about B or not.
P.S. Why do people keep spelling it "Lybia"? It's bizarre, unless it's a joke.
-
What is it Stalin said, a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic?
In the likes of Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, the slaughter is going on daily, and has been for years.
In the Israel conflict, it is sporadic. You can get time to get personally invested in specific incidents. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
-
For someone who ostensibly isn't pro-Israeli Luis you do spend an awful lot of time defending everything they do.
Y U troll so lazyly here? It's not as if you are even remotely right about what you are saying here. What the hell are you even doing here but contributing with snark? Do you think this is good use of both my and your time? Come on.
-
The comments section is all over the place. So many completely different reactions to the article.
Yeah well, what isn't all over the place in the longest lasting conflict in human memory?
Um...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War
But I do of course see your point.
Lightweight. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars) :p
-
@ Aesaar :)
For someone who ostensibly isn't pro-Israeli Luis you do spend an awful lot of time defending everything they do.
Y U troll so lazyly here? It's not as if you are even remotely right about what you are saying here. What the hell are you even doing here but contributing with snark? Do you think this is good use of both my and your time? Come on.
He also needs calling out on this bull**** he keeps trying to pin on Sandwich. And yes I said bull****, because I'm that confident. I'm curious, does anyone else think Sandwich is any of hateful, racist, neo-colonialist, etc. ?
Sandwich has only ever as far as I can tell taken issue with Hamas, not the Palestinian people, and I'm sure we can all agree that Hamas is the biggest problem in this conflict.
-
What is it Stalin said, a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic?
In the likes of Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, the slaughter is going on daily, and has been for years.
In the Israel conflict, it is sporadic. You can get time to get personally invested in specific incidents. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
Stalin didn't actually say that. :) Still true, though. Many people simply ceased to care about those places. Also, Gaza is something they could relate to somewhat better. Israel is, afterall, a "1st world country", while internal squabbles in the "3rd world countries" are of no interest. Media prefer the conflict in Gaza, and because you hear about it much more from them, more people discuss (and protest about that).
IIRC, there were public protests over the events in the Middle East when the Arab Spring started. People over the world cheered for the rebels. The "regular business", no matter how outrageous, rarely gets mentioned, but when something distinctive happens, people are quick to jump on it.
-
Sandwich has only ever as far as I can tell taken issue with Hamas, not the Palestinian people, and I'm sure we can all agree that Hamas is the biggest problem in this conflict.
"the Palestinian/Islamic culture of incitement, hatred, and death needs to stop before anything resembling a real peace can be achieved"
-
Here it is:
Yeah Hamas is kind of trying to make peace impossible for the next few generations:
*snip*
Yep. Like I said pages and pages ago, the Palestinian/Islamic culture of incitement, hatred, and death needs to stop before anything resembling a real peace can be achieved.
Okay. But it's still in direct response to talking about Hamas, the primary source of that culture in the area. He's still talking about Hamas.
-
Posting jr2's video for context.
Yeah Hamas is kind of trying to make peace impossible for the next few generations:
-
I'd love all these goons who declare their love for martyrdom and death and so on to just, you know, actualize this immense love ****ing already. Jesus ****ing Christ.
-
I'd love all these goons who declare their love for martyrdom and death and so on to just, you know, actualize this immense love ****ing already. Jesus ****ing Christ.
Yeah, when do you ever see someone of some prominence actually do what they preach to their followers?
-
I'd love all these goons who declare their love for martyrdom and death and so on to just, you know, actualize this immense love ****ing already. Jesus ****ing Christ.
Yeah. If death, martyrdom and pain is are so noble, why can't we all take a lead pill every day and die a slow, painful, early death? Me? I'd rather live for my ideals rather than die for them. :) I know something about it, because Poles love martyrdom just as much as Arabs. Must be a religious thing, since we can also be just as bigoted as them, and if it wasn't for the fact we don't have that many AKs, just as violent. :) I prefer being noble in life, by doing things like helping people, donating to charities and other stuff that actually make things better. The whole concept of martyrdom is ridiculous, and probably invented by those who needed people to throw themselves at the enemy without worrying about death.
-
Of course that's where it comes from, and it has nothing to do with religion either.
-
AFAIK martyrdom in religions is about been forced between renouncing your faith or die and choosing to die, considering the first to be worse than death. It is related to religious oppresion and non-violent response and is a self-imposed hard choice between the material and the transcendental. To transform that into killing other people and be killed in the same act is somewhat peculiar to say the least, and religion per se has nothing to do with it. But maybe I shouldn't be surprissed, "[...] For it is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." (Adlai Stevenson).
-
I think suicide bombers would do a lot better at advancing their cause if they took out the bomber part.
Which is more likely to garner sympathy? Walking into a crowded place and detonating a bomb, killing a bunch of innocent people, or walking into a crowded place and killing only yourself, leaving something behind on your person to signify why. Or just with a cry of "For Palestine!" or something.
-
So self-immolation then?
-
So self-immolation then?
It would have to be something quick and irreversible. Cut your throat. Suicide pill. I doubt people would just let you pour petrol over yourself and set yourself on fire. And even if it did get that far, someone might tackle you and put you out. There's also the danger of setting other people on fire. And it blocks you from leaving something behind like a note or a recording as it would burn.
Of course, it would be best if no one had to die. But better this than a suicide bomb.
-
Which is more likely to garner sympathy? Walking into a crowded place and detonating a bomb, killing a bunch of innocent people, or walking into a crowded place and killing only yourself, leaving something behind on your person to signify why. Or just with a cry of "For Palestine!" or something.
This was done, you know? Indeed, one guy (I think in Syria) did just that and pretty much kicked off the rebellion. I think in front of a police station, but I might be mixing two events up. Also, in Poland, an old soldier did that in main square, in Krakow, to protest the lies of the communist regime. There is a memorial now, "Unable to live a lie, he died in the truth" (loose translation). Notice the sites of suicide bombings only commemorate the victims and you'll see the difference clearly.
Self-immolation is actually a powerful way of making a point, much better than any suicide bombing. But it also requires a lot more balls and actual belief in your cause. Hamas lacks either, as they showed multiple times. Heck, I don't remember Hamas doing even suicide bombing, or at least not recently. They've always been bloody cowards when it came down to it. Same goes for most terrorists, TBH. It's easy to talk about about dying for your cause, but when someone actually does it, on his own will, this is another story entirely.
-
I do remember hearing of at least one self-immolation case, and if pulled off it is probably the most powerful way to make the point. I don't think it would work in a crowded location though and would be dangerous.
Unfortunately someone I knew did this to make the point to his ex. Killed himself with fire in her garden. It was very sad and no one remotely saw it coming.
-
He also needs calling out on this bull**** he keeps trying to pin on Sandwich. And yes I said bull****, because I'm that confident. I'm curious, does anyone else think Sandwich is any of hateful, racist, neo-colonialist, etc. ?
Sandwich has only ever as far as I can tell taken issue with Hamas, not the Palestinian people, and I'm sure we can all agree that Hamas is the biggest problem in this conflict.
I disagree with the intensity of the objection but not so much in the objection itself. Sandwich does a lot better than I have to deal with reading on reddit but still has taken points to mention the things from the list of Israel-state responses to criticism that are less than great responses
- Made the "they're not occupied territories" claim => Israel is the main one to say this while most international judgements say "Yes they are"
- "This is all the Palestinians fault, they just need to disarm" claim
- "You're being anti-Israel for not prioritizing Syria and others in your outrage" claim
- "This is just self-defense!" claim
I will say this in a dangerous way, but only because I know of no other way to state it. Therefore i'm going to highlight something several times in this paragraph and outside of it : I do not think Sandwich is a shill. I do not think Sandwich is a shill. But, some of the times (presumably because he's too busy, you know, being effected by this to write long posts like myself and others are doing), the messages he's left sound similar to some of the things being said by less than nice people on this matter. There's been both intense nationalist fervor as well as heavy astroturfing during public discussions of this conflict. People who've been spending a lot of time reading those kind of posts/messages/news-bites are going to read his posts and jump on the points of overlap (even when there may not actually be overlap or similarity in intentions). I do not think Sandwich is a shill.
Is this unfair? Probably. But it's a known human reaction. Been having to explain this to other people for other topics, particularly with one friend who's extremely rational and overall a good person, but doesn't realize the way he opens some arguments sound exactly like the stuff the bigots say, and people typically don't wait the requisite amount of time it'd take to tell the difference. (Good guy overall, who may or may not be reading this *waves*). The point where one can tell the difference between an aggressive centrist and a silver-tonged bigot is sometimes 50-60% of the length into the argument. Unfortunately, most people do not want to wait that long and instead go by the judgement of "first 20% sounds like misinformed or hostile, therefore assume hostile."
Again, I do not think Sandwich is a shill, apologist, bigot, or any such negative things. Really. I wish him the best and as you might guess by my lessened number of posts in the thread, I don't have any desire of furthering the incorrect notion that I dislike anyone else posting in this thread. Disagree with on this topic, maybe feel frustrated that a better consensus couldn't be reached? Sure. But that's about it.
I'm sure we can all agree that Hamas is the biggest problem in this conflict.
Nope. Don't get me wrong, they're horrible. But they're anything if not predictable in their reaction to everything, which makes it a bit more damning sometimes during various conflicts when people try to say "there's nothing anyone else could have done to prevent this!"
Is there anything you might consider fair to be done is a better question.
But really, when you take a political power that maintains roughly a similar stance and motivation for the long term, and is not only extremely reactionary, but reactionary in incredibly predictable ways, that's fish in a barrel for foreign policy. But instead, in some baffling move, Israel steps right into every one of the plays Hamas makes.
Hell. maybe some of the things raised here are more right than people gave credit for : Maybe the human shield thing is at least partially true (willing to admit it might be to some degree), and maybe the kidnapping/murder of the three teens was directly Hamas orders (evidence seems to indicate otherwise, but it's not outside of realm of possibility). But even if that's true, why in the HELL would you fall right into the playbook as good as they've been doing?
It's a situation where it's hard to find a winning move, granted, but every move played so far, intentionally or otherwise, hasn't just been a non-winning move but has instead been the worst possible move you could attempt in terms of not sparking international outrage. (And for gods sake find the politicians that are making public statements about "we should deport or kill everyone in Gaza" and get them to shut up. Not helping matters right now!)
-
Hell. maybe some of the things raised here are more right than people gave credit for : Maybe the human shield thing is at least partially true (willing to admit it might be to some degree), and maybe the kidnapping/murder of the three teens was directly Hamas orders (evidence seems to indicate otherwise, but it's not outside of realm of possibility). But even if that's true, why in the HELL would you fall right into the playbook as good as they've been doing?
Very much this.
Hands up anyone who thinks arresting 300+ people for the murder of 3 was the right thing to do?
If you have evidence that Hamas are behind the murders, ****ing present it. Demand that the government of the West Bank extradite the guilty. Demand that the West Bank act like the independent country you try to claim it is. Even George ****ing Bush tried to do that after 9/11 for the first week or so.
The simple fact is that Israel wanted this war every bit as much as Hamas did. It's a deliberate attempt to try to pay Hamas back for trying to reconcile with Fatah. Because despite their claims Israel very much do not want a more moderate government in the Gaza Strip. Hamas are such scumbags that people have been willing to turn a blind eye to what Israel are doing, even going so far as to blame the Palestinians for it.
-
You can always count on Chomsky to make the definitive case for the Palestinians:
http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/44265-outrage.html
-
Couple of short points since I should be sleeping now instead of debating things online... :p
That quote I posted was directed at you forumites as something to ponder, not as an accusation against anyone here. The "accused" - the parties guilty of what the quote refers to - are basically the protesters worldwide, the media, and the U.N. Those are the entities who repeatedly single out Israel for everything from genocide to apartheid to washing whites and colors together, while remaining silent on far greater conflicts worldwide resulting in far greater numbers of casualties. It's a double-standard.
Sandwich has only ever as far as I can tell taken issue with Hamas, not the Palestinian people, and I'm sure we can all agree that Hamas is the biggest problem in this conflict.
"the Palestinian/Islamic culture of incitement, hatred, and death needs to stop before anything resembling a real peace can be achieved"
Just because I identify Hamas as our enemy doesn't mean that the Palestinians are automatically angelic people who can do no wrong. I stand by my statement, and I'll even expand it: Any culture where murder, hatred, bloodlust, and the "love of death" is praised, encouraged, and taught to children needs to change before one can expect to be able to attain a lasting peace with them.
Finally, regarding the accusations that Israel "played" right into the hands of Hamas when it responded the way it did - that's the difference between Hamas and Israel. Hamas is playing games first - media manipulation, world sympathy, etc. - and defending its civilians, well, not at all. On the other hand, Israel is defending its civilians first, and worrying about world opinion later.
So if you want to keep playing your armchair politics and accuse us of anything, Kara, at least accuse us of things we're guilty of - defending our own.
-
Couple of short points since I should be sleeping now instead of debating things online... :p
That quote I posted was directed at you forumites as something to ponder, not as an accusation against anyone here. The "accused" - the parties guilty of what the quote refers to - are basically the protesters worldwide, the media, and the U.N. Those are the entities who repeatedly single out Israel for everything from genocide to apartheid to washing whites and colors together, while remaining silent on far greater conflicts worldwide resulting in far greater numbers of casualties. It's a double-standard.
Sandwich has only ever as far as I can tell taken issue with Hamas, not the Palestinian people, and I'm sure we can all agree that Hamas is the biggest problem in this conflict.
"the Palestinian/Islamic culture of incitement, hatred, and death needs to stop before anything resembling a real peace can be achieved"
Just because I identify Hamas as our enemy doesn't mean that the Palestinians are automatically angelic people who can do no wrong. I stand by my statement, and I'll even expand it: Any culture where murder, hatred, bloodlust, and the "love of death" is praised, encouraged, and taught to children needs to change before one can expect to be able to attain a lasting peace with them.
Finally, regarding the accusations that Israel "played" right into the hands of Hamas when it responded the way it did - that's the difference between Hamas and Israel. Hamas is playing games first - media manipulation, world sympathy, etc. - and defending its civilians, well, not at all. On the other hand, Israel is defending its civilians first, and worrying about world opinion later.
So if you want to keep playing your armchair politics and accuse us of anything, Kara, at least accuse us of things we're guilty of - defending our own.
Defending them from a vicious attack by a UN school? Or the Gazan freshwater plant? Or the four hospitals Israel has bombed? Or four children playing on the beach?
-
Seriously Sandwich? You're going to defend Israel's policy of collective guilt as "defending your own"? I'm sorry but arresting 300 people for a murder has absolutely nothing to do with defending the population of Israel or attempting to get justice for a crime.
I simply do not believe that was the reason Operation Brother's Keeper was initiated and if it was, you really need to get rid of whoever came up with that idea cause they really SUCK at their job.
But go on. Explain to me what Operation Brother's Keeper was really about. I want to know how it was not just a deliberate provocation in response to Hamas' and Fatah's attempts to bury the hatchet.
-
Those are the entities who repeatedly single out Israel for everything from genocide to apartheid to washing whites and colors together, while remaining silent on far greater conflicts worldwide resulting in far greater numbers of casualties. It's a double-standard.
So the best defense you can muster is that others have killed a lot more civilians than Israel? That you should be lauded for your moderation? Does a nation that goes to "extraordinary lengths" to minimize civilian casualties bomb hospitals, water and power plants, UN schools serving as refugee centers (whose staff have loudly decried any attempt to hide weapons within its walls when they have discovered them)? Does it shell children on the beach from visual range? Does it bomb civilians who have returned to their homes to recover their possessions during a ceasefire (the breaking of which was started as far as anyone can tell by Israeli artillery fire)?
Let's not engage in vague talks about human shields and "defending their own." Let's see what the Israeli government has actually done with its munitions. Can the bombing of any target be justified? Let's find out.
And if Israel is committing war crimes, then congratulations, you're no different from us when we bombed farming villages in South Vietnam and herded the fleeing civilians into concentration camps to isolate them from aiding the Viet Cong. You're no different from Britain when it massacred unarmed Indian civilians gathering in public during the Independence movement. Perhaps Israel is like all other nations. You have your mission to create a safe homeland for your people, which is an altogether more noble goal than our Manifest Destiny to reach the Pacific, which we used as an excuse to commit genocide upon the Native Americans. We all have our unjust justifications for state violence, and I've seen this happen too many times in history to be fooled by you now.
-
The (unrevised) 1999 platform of Israel’s governing party, Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud, “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” And for those who like to obsess about meaningless charters, the core component of Likud, Menahem Begin’s Herut, has yet to abandon its founding doctrine that the territory on both sides of the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel.
Hang on a sec, isn't that the exact same ****ing thing we use to claim that Hamas would never accept peace?
-
Karajorma, no! Don't bring the facts out!
Here's another one, this one about Hamas:
On December 1, 2010, Ismail Haniyeh again repeated, "We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees," and "Hamas will respect the results [of a referendum] regardless of whether it differs with its ideology and principles."
This will be denied to the death, but it's certainly not inconceivable that if such a referendum ever actually occurred and independence was agreed to, Hamas would be assimilated (whether its leaders like it or not) into a peaceful political system like Sinn Fein is now in Ireland.
-
Hamas also offered a 10 year truce and has talked with the ANC about using the same tactics the ANC taught Sinn Fein with Israel. But of course that goes against the narrative people like to present of the peace loving Israelis being attacked by the crazy religious warmongers in Hamas.
I've said it multiple times, they're both as bad as each other.
All ****ing silent over this. And no, I'm not speaking about us people in the internets or forums or whatever. I'm speaking about coordinated protests on the streets, movements, and so on. All these coordinated events only point against Israel. Well while I would agree with them that Israel is behaving on the wrong side of the moral line here, I'm extremely cynical and unsympathetic towards these protesters and movements that rail against Israel and for Palestine. They don't give a **** about human lives, they do give a **** about Israel though, in the worst sense.
Well unlike the others the West frequently backs Israel. I for one can understand getting upset against Israel if you are an American. You are funding what is going on in Gaza. Why wouldn't you organise protests against something your nation is spending billions of dollars on?
Can you really say that any of the other conflicts have that sort of interest from America? Can you really say that in any of the other conflicts mentioned the West hasn't come down quite heavily against the people responsible for the deaths?
Perhaps instead of asking why Israel is being singled out for so much hatred, we should ask why is it being singled out for so much love from the West first?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/08/04/Hamas-Combat-Manual-Endorses-Use-of-Civilian-Human-Shields
They captured an operations manual for Hamas.
As for the UN schools, I do believe that even the UN admitted that they found weapons stashed in 3 other schools.
-
As for the UN schools, I do believe that even the UN admitted that they found weapons stashed in 3 other schools.
And that makes it okay to bomb them?
-
Well, there were weapons caches and supposedly Israeli forces came under attack from that location (not surprising). Given the situation, or does look like it would have been better to send ground troops given the refugees in the school. However, I'm not privy to what information the IDF did or did not have. They are supposedly investigating the incident.
-
As for the UN schools, I do believe that even the UN admitted that they found weapons stashed in 3 other schools.
And that makes it okay to bomb them?
Yes, if they have good reason to believe there is a weapon stash then that would make it OK to bomb them. But ideally they should put out a warning and a knock on the roof missile before the attack to give the people some time to escape. Or a ground attack.
-
Did you not read the Noam Chomsky article? It makes it pretty clear that the warnings are virtually useless.
Oh and for those talking about the indoctrination of Hamas against Israel....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/06/gaza-israel-movement-that-dare-not-speak-its-name
-
Did you not read the Noam Chomsky article? It makes it pretty clear that the warnings are virtually useless.
I didnt, source?
-
Scroll up. Mr Vega posted it earlier.
-
Here's an article about a leaked Isreali PR document detailing how to lie to the American public:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html
-
Here's an article about a leaked Isreali PR document detailing how to lie to the American public:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html
Remember when I said someone in Israel finds this war bloody convenient? Well, looks like it's true. As always, it shows what the government says is not always in line with what it does.
Thought TBH, that's to be expected, and Hamas likely has a similar booklet on how to play the victim card to the full extent. I think both sides should be ashamed of themselves by this point. Not that they really care about "the men on the street".
-
Here's the actual report. The part starting at page 75 is my favorite:
http://www.stopdebezetting.com/documents/pdf/090713Hasbara%20handboek_tip_report.pdf
-
Love it. :) It's certainly genuine, looks like really professional. They know who they're talking to and how to do it:
Also, It’s “militant Islam,” not “Islamo-fascism.” If you want the people in power in
the American government and around the world today to listen and learn, you need
language that doesn’t sound like it came from George W. Bush.
You could probably run for POTUS with more booklets like that. :)
The right of return should, IMO, be discussed, no matter how anyone tries to prevent this. That Jews were historically evicted from a whole lot of places doesn't mean they should do the same for other people. Especially that in Poland, for example, Jews are gaining back property they lost during WWII. Sometimes evicting the former tenants... Sounds familiar?
-
I'm all for that, but I will still keep calling it "islamo-fascism", because that's what it is really, and it's even an euphemism at best. I don't recall european fascism of the twentieth century beheading people for not wearing burkas or what not.
-
No, it was shooting and gassing them for wearing hair braids, among other things. Same thing when you get down to it and beheading is most likely the least painful option, TBH. But "fascism" invokes Godwin's Law, and it's a good way to stop being taken seriously. "Militant Islam" is better, since that implies Islam might be non-militant and avoids Godwin's Law. That's how rhetoric works, it requires intelligence to see a point when you're calling spade a spade, but if you use rhetoric, you can convince a lot more people to your point, sometimes without even mentioning what it actually is. It's pretty much the only way you can get your way in politics in the civilized world (in an uncivilized one, like Poland, you just need to be controversial and loud enough). Obama in particular is great at this, say what you will about the man, but he know how to speak. This booklet took a lot of hints from him, and openly acknowledges this.
-
Fascism is not Nazism, and both you and me should know better than these shallow commentaries. I live in a country where 40 years ago we were inside a nasty fascist rule. I don't think it's such a godwin label, at least for anyone who knows what the **** the terminologies refer to. Of course, an argument can always be made that ignorant ****s will always mischaracterize these terms and think "Ah there goes the godwin again", but I am really for pushing back against deferring to the common stupid denominator.
-
This handbook was written for talking to common Americans. Notice how often they are mentioned! And for the common American man, Fascism=Nazism="There goes Godwin". For people who know what Nazism and Fascism were about, there's no such thing as Godwin's law. Hitler is not a modern word for "Devil" but an actual person and dictator. So is Fasci, whom I don't think most people ever heard about. In fact, most of these stupid internet laws apply only to dumb or unimaginative people. Still, the "majority" is composed of such dumb and unimaginative people, and this is who makes the real decisions in a democracy (my main argument against this type of government). Intelligent people, those who can see through the rhetoric and see the truth, or lack thereof, behind it, are in minority and usually have a hard time influencing the unthinking majority.
In America, ignorance of such subtle details is exaggerated by physical distance. For many of them, "Europe" is like a single country and WWII was mostly about Pacific. In Europe, it consisted (for them) of Battle of Britain, Stalingrad and Normandy landings. Nazis were the bad guys, everyone else was good. Europe is far away, so they're concerned little with it.
-
Perhaps instead of asking why Israel is being singled out for so much hatred, we should ask why is it being singled out for so much love from the West first?
Because American politicians love getting re-elected, so they keep funding these conflicts and the military contractors that make huge donations to campaigns and Super PACs, and the American people are still too comfortable and distracted (or lazy and apathetic?) to do **** about it?
-
You can't even make the comparison in the first place, as you've just acknowledged, because you can't say that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to that standard. This is why I took issue with your original statement.
Because were the western nations in the same place they would make the same decisions. There are numerous examples of better informed people choosing to elect scumbags. But we don't hold the people anywhere near as responsible for the actions of their governments as we do in the case of the Palestinians.
I've been remiss in reading and responding to this thread.
You can't know this. You cannot know that if you plopped a Western population down in the middle of Gaza and said "elect some guys that are incompetent but won't get you shot at by your much more powerful neighbour because they vow to attack and kill its civilians, or these other guys who might be marginally more competent, or at least aren't the first guys, but who will do exactly that" that said population would then knowingly pick the folks who are going to get them shot at.
You can try to make this equivocation all you like, but you have no historical precedent to do so. The fact remains that the only population that has knowingly elected a listed terrorist organization who made pre-election promises and statements that they knew would eventually provoke violence and retaliation from their neighbouring country is.... Gaza. They're on a whole different level when it comes to electing scumbags, I'm genuinely very sorry to say, and they have paid for it dearly.
I'm sorry to keep pounding on this point, but I am constantly amazed at the lengths some people here are willing to go to to minimize Hamas' behaviour. They are a listed terrorist organization, they intentionally target civilians, they intentionally murder civilians when open hostilities are not engaged in, they terrorize and subjugate their own civilian population, they divert funding from economic projects to funding their terrorism (including weapons stockpiling, tunnel infrastructure, etc), they use their own civilians as human shields and the bodies of those same civilians to score political sympathy points, they occupy safe zones and fire weapons from them, and they oppose the very existence of their neighbouring state. They start open hostilities to win concessions, and then they use those concessions to fund continual violence.
Israel is no saint. They deserve criticism for their tactics, their strategic outlook, and their heavy-handed use of military force to respond to Hamas. But there is not a world in which I will support Hamas over Israel, or try to equate the two. Nobody in the regional is particularly noble, but one side on the armed conflict is notably worse than the other for long-term peace and prosperity, and its name starts with H. I have genuine sympathy for Gaza and the West Bank, and I'd like the world to collectively put its boot in Israel's ass to deal with the situation, but when the rockets start flying to civilian zones or the kidnapping and murder of civilians starts, I will never concede that Hamas is even remotely excusable in its actions.
I fully believe it is possible to criticize Israel and recognize it's villainous behaviour in some aspects of this historical conflict, while simultaneously recognizing that Hamas are actually villains deserving of global and unequivocable condemnation.
-
You can try to make this equivocation all you like, but you have no historical precedent to do so. The fact remains that the only population that has knowingly elected a listed terrorist organization who made pre-election promises and statements that they knew would eventually provoke violence and retaliation from their neighbouring country is.... Gaza. They're on a whole different level when it comes to electing scumbags, I'm genuinely very sorry to say, and they have paid for it dearly.
Perhaps you should look at partisans and underground countries, then. What is really unprecedented here was Isreal giving Gaza an "official" permission to elect someone. Historically, when something like this happened, the invading nation simply suppressed any notions of the conquered one's nationality, or kept their government under tight control at best. Gaza didn't believe in it's freedom, so they elected those who promised to make them free and destroy their oppressors. Essentially an officially elected rebellion. Hamas' politics are not anything new, what is new is that they are allowed to do that openly instead of underground. When I compared them to rebels and revolutionaries, it became really clear. They're just a rebellion against Israel that, due to a peculiar sequence of events, became it's own country of sorts. It's methods have things in common with IRA, Polish underground movements and so on. Yes, including spreading hate towards their enemies and (perceived) oppressors. Just listen to some IRA songs or read Polish rebel literature. It's the same idea, sometimes disturbingly similar. You should have heard things Poles used to say about the Germans back in 19th century... I'm sure other rebel groups had some of this as well.
-
Perhaps you should look at partisans and underground countries, then. What is really unprecedented here was Isreal giving Gaza an "official" permission to elect someone. Historically, when something like this happened, the invading nation simply suppressed any notions of the conquered one's nationality, or kept their government under tight control at best. Gaza didn't believe in it's freedom, so they elected those who promised to make them free and destroy their oppressors. Essentially an officially elected rebellion. Hamas' politics are not anything new, what is new is that they are allowed to do that openly instead of underground. When I compared them to rebels and revolutionaries, it became really clear. They're just a rebellion against Israel that, due to a peculiar sequence of events, became it's own country of sorts. It's methods have things in common with IRA, Polish underground movements and so on. Yes, including spreading hate towards their enemies and (perceived) oppressors. Just listen to some IRA songs or read Polish rebel literature. It's the same idea, sometimes disturbingly similar. You should have heard things Poles used to say about the Germans back in 19th century... I'm sure other rebel groups had some of this as well.
There are so many things historically wrong in this that I don't know quite where to begin.
In the case of 20th century revolutionaries, these are unelected groups with no political alternative or functioning democratic system who have attempted to overthrow governments of the nation or nations of which they are a part.
The IRA, on the other hand, was an unelected terrorist organization that sought to use means of violence to overthrow a democratic governance structure, while a parallel political movement operated alongside it within the system. It's the reason that the IRA is globally condemned as a terrorist organization (and much of Ireland's Troubles stemmed from the power imbalance between the large majority Catholic population in Northern Ireland and the comparatively small minority Protestant population). It's also the reason that Northern ireland's problems have largely been dealt with by a political solution, and there was never a popular uprising.
Hamas, in turn, was an elected terrorist organization within the political process that openly stated its desire to wipe out and commit violence upon the civilian population of a neighbouring country. It's not a romantic rebellion against Israel, it's not a justified opposition to state oppression, it's a group of terrorist thugs that got elected due to several ****ty circumstances colliding and now holds an entire quasi-state hostage. They are much more comparable to the terrorist bull**** of the IRA than the other forms of political rebellion we've seen in places like the Balkan region and the Eastern Bloc. On the other hand, they're simultaneously worse than the IRA because they were actually democratically elected initially, whereas the IRA never was (Sinn Fein, IMHO, doesn't count).
Further compounding the issue is that "Palestine" has never been a nation, at least until recently. Rather, it was a historical region of multiple ethnicities and faiths. The modern grouping of Palestinian as Arab, Muslim, and belonging to a nation is entirely the result of the political opposition to the creation of the state of Israel. Hamas isn't comprised of Palestinians wanting to reclaim their homeland stolen by the state of Israel. Hamas is a group of terrorist thugs, predominantly of Arab ethnicity and hiding behind the guise of Islam, who have long proclaimed a goal of wiping Israel off the map in favour of creation of a fundamentalist theocracy that is at least theoretically Islamic. They aren't noble freedom fighters; they're the singular largest factor standing between the status quo and a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both Israel and a multi-faith state called Palestine existing in the region formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine.
-
Perhaps you should look at partisans and underground countries, then. What is really unprecedented here was Isreal giving Gaza an "official" permission to elect someone. Historically, when something like this happened, the invading nation simply suppressed any notions of the conquered one's nationality, or kept their government under tight control at best. Gaza didn't believe in it's freedom, so they elected those who promised to make them free and destroy their oppressors. Essentially an officially elected rebellion. Hamas' politics are not anything new, what is new is that they are allowed to do that openly instead of underground. When I compared them to rebels and revolutionaries, it became really clear. They're just a rebellion against Israel that, due to a peculiar sequence of events, became it's own country of sorts. It's methods have things in common with IRA, Polish underground movements and so on. Yes, including spreading hate towards their enemies and (perceived) oppressors. Just listen to some IRA songs or read Polish rebel literature. It's the same idea, sometimes disturbingly similar. You should have heard things Poles used to say about the Germans back in 19th century... I'm sure other rebel groups had some of this as well.
There are so many things historically wrong in this that I don't know quite where to begin.
In the case of 20th century revolutionaries, these are unelected groups with no political alternative or functioning democratic system who have attempted to overthrow governments of the nation or nations of which they are a part.
The IRA, on the other hand, was an unelected terrorist organization that sought to use means of violence to overthrow a democratic governance structure, while a parallel political movement operated alongside it within the system. It's the reason that the IRA is globally condemned as a terrorist organization (and much of Ireland's Troubles stemmed from the power imbalance between the large majority Catholic population in Northern Ireland and the comparatively small minority Protestant population). It's also the reason that Northern ireland's problems have largely been dealt with by a political solution, and there was never a popular uprising.
Hamas, in turn, was an elected terrorist organization within the political process that openly stated its desire to wipe out and commit violence upon the civilian population of a neighbouring country. It's not a romantic rebellion against Israel, it's not a justified opposition to state oppression, it's a group of terrorist thugs that got elected due to several ****ty circumstances colliding and now holds an entire quasi-state hostage. They are much more comparable to the terrorist bull**** of the IRA than the other forms of political rebellion we've seen in places like the Balkan region and the Eastern Bloc. On the other hand, they're simultaneously worse than the IRA because they were actually democratically elected initially, whereas the IRA never was (Sinn Fein, IMHO, doesn't count).
Further compounding the issue is that "Palestine" has never been a nation, at least until recently. Rather, it was a historical region of multiple ethnicities and faiths. The modern grouping of Palestinian as Arab, Muslim, and belonging to a nation is entirely the result of the political opposition to the creation of the state of Israel. Hamas isn't comprised of Palestinians wanting to reclaim their homeland stolen by the state of Israel. Hamas is a group of terrorist thugs, predominantly of Arab ethnicity and hiding behind the guise of Islam, who have long proclaimed a goal of wiping Israel off the map in favour of creation of a fundamentalist theocracy that is at least theoretically Islamic. They aren't noble freedom fighters; they're the singular largest factor standing between the status quo and a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both Israel and a multi-faith state called Palestine existing in the region formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine.
And yet Hamas has stated it will accept a 2 state solution along the 1967 borders, whereas the ruling party of Israel rejects the idea of a two state solution in its entirety.
-
I know for a fact that I've posted a link in here at least twice (possibly three times) to the Hamas leadership openly refuting their willingness to accept a two state solution. I'm on a phone or I'd look up the exact posts for you.
-
I think it's safe to say it's a good idea, except none of the two governments wants to accept it. If it was as simple as that, we'd have peace long before now. The '67 borders are not that bad of an idea, but it's unfortunately too good for anyone to actually accept.
The IRA, on the other hand, was an unelected terrorist organization that sought to use means of violence to overthrow a democratic governance structure, while a parallel political movement operated alongside it within the system. It's the reason that the IRA is globally condemned as a terrorist organization (and much of Ireland's Troubles stemmed from the power imbalance between the large majority Catholic population in Northern Ireland and the comparatively small minority Protestant population). It's also the reason that Northern ireland's problems have largely been dealt with by a political solution, and there was never a popular uprising.
I was talking about the "previous" IRA, not the one from the Troubles. The one all the best songs are about. :) There was a popular uprising, on Easter 1916. They had other differences to Hamas, definitely less formal, but they had a lot of popular support. And boy, did they hate the "Black and Tans"... British also thought them terrorists, but in Ireland, they're heroes.
Also, what about "Mandate of Palestine" and "Emirate of Transjordan" from before WWII? They were where Israel is now. Weren't those nations in their own right? OK, the map I have lists them as British territory, but it was pre-WWII.
-
I know for a fact that I've posted a link in here at least twice (possibly three times) to the Hamas leadership openly refuting their willingness to accept a two state solution. I'm on a phone or I'd look up the exact posts for you.
Go back a page or two and look at the quote i provided. Keep in mind it was spoken recently.
-
Perhaps you should look at partisans and underground countries, then. What is really unprecedented here was Isreal giving Gaza an "official" permission to elect someone. Historically, when something like this happened, the invading nation simply suppressed any notions of the conquered one's nationality, or kept their government under tight control at best. Gaza didn't believe in it's freedom, so they elected those who promised to make them free and destroy their oppressors. Essentially an officially elected rebellion. Hamas' politics are not anything new, what is new is that they are allowed to do that openly instead of underground. When I compared them to rebels and revolutionaries, it became really clear. They're just a rebellion against Israel that, due to a peculiar sequence of events, became it's own country of sorts. It's methods have things in common with IRA, Polish underground movements and so on. Yes, including spreading hate towards their enemies and (perceived) oppressors. Just listen to some IRA songs or read Polish rebel literature. It's the same idea, sometimes disturbingly similar. You should have heard things Poles used to say about the Germans back in 19th century... I'm sure other rebel groups had some of this as well.
There are so many things historically wrong in this that I don't know quite where to begin.
In the case of 20th century revolutionaries, these are unelected groups with no political alternative or functioning democratic system who have attempted to overthrow governments of the nation or nations of which they are a part.
The IRA, on the other hand, was an unelected terrorist organization that sought to use means of violence to overthrow a democratic governance structure, while a parallel political movement operated alongside it within the system. It's the reason that the IRA is globally condemned as a terrorist organization (and much of Ireland's Troubles stemmed from the power imbalance between the large majority Catholic population in Northern Ireland and the comparatively small minority Protestant population). It's also the reason that Northern ireland's problems have largely been dealt with by a political solution, and there was never a popular uprising.
Hamas, in turn, was an elected terrorist organization within the political process that openly stated its desire to wipe out and commit violence upon the civilian population of a neighbouring country. It's not a romantic rebellion against Israel, it's not a justified opposition to state oppression, it's a group of terrorist thugs that got elected due to several ****ty circumstances colliding and now holds an entire quasi-state hostage. They are much more comparable to the terrorist bull**** of the IRA than the other forms of political rebellion we've seen in places like the Balkan region and the Eastern Bloc. On the other hand, they're simultaneously worse than the IRA because they were actually democratically elected initially, whereas the IRA never was (Sinn Fein, IMHO, doesn't count).
Further compounding the issue is that "Palestine" has never been a nation, at least until recently. Rather, it was a historical region of multiple ethnicities and faiths. The modern grouping of Palestinian as Arab, Muslim, and belonging to a nation is entirely the result of the political opposition to the creation of the state of Israel. Hamas isn't comprised of Palestinians wanting to reclaim their homeland stolen by the state of Israel. Hamas is a group of terrorist thugs, predominantly of Arab ethnicity and hiding behind the guise of Islam, who have long proclaimed a goal of wiping Israel off the map in favour of creation of a fundamentalist theocracy that is at least theoretically Islamic. They aren't noble freedom fighters; they're the singular largest factor standing between the status quo and a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both Israel and a multi-faith state called Palestine existing in the region formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine.
Every rebellion is more or less elected. Just not without the formalities or tight controls you see in the first world (although ironically many informal elections can be more fair than "formal" elections in countries like the US with broken electoral systems). Much like criminal enterprise, sure there's the elements of intimidation, suppression, violence (those historically exist in many democracies as well), but ultimately, desperate people vote with their feet just as much as upstanding citizens vote with a ballot. By being a part of rebel group you signify that you support that group as your best chance out of the current situation. When you're willing to die supporting a group, the idea that you need a formal election to signify that you support them is an unnecessary formality.
Moving on. You can't keep waffling between calling Palestine a state or a non-state when it suits your argument. Terms like "another country's civilians" imply that it's another country, which by legal rulings as well as most practical metrics, it isn't. And like I said in earlier post. They aren't the biggest factor against peace. Hamas is manageable, because even as monsters, they're insanely predictable monsters, with now a very limited playbook. It's as multiple people have been hinting at saying, there's a certain point when it can be no longer "negligence" or "it seems clearer in hindsight". Israel is not even trying to avoid stepping in the mud because they know no meaningful consequences will come from the mud stepping.
The fact that the US, Israel's most important ally, has been criticizing Israel for not taking the peace process seriously since as far back as Clinton (i think someone here actually said it goes back further), should really say something here.
We come down harder on Israel more than any of the other places in the Middle East because they're a damn first world country, with a very advanced military, educated populace, and experienced politicians. They should be able to handle this. Instead, they've let a situation persist that fans the flames of unrest both in the region as well as the rest of the world. They may not be fully causing the situation but they've done only the most trifling moves to try and fix it. And don't bring up pulling out of Gaza or the "relaxed" situation in the West Bank, those aren't really moves to peace considering that even from when each was initiated, they've been tactical moves that benefit Israel greatly, while, under best interpretations, only maintain the status quo for Palestinians (their lives continue to suck, I'm not sure they'd find much solace that the reasons life sucks for them technically changed). Making moves that benefit yourself does not necessarily mean you're moving towards peace.
The claim that there's nothing that Israel can do to get close to peace without the other side moving first is something that has been more and more flimsy with every decade that's passed.
-
Nope. Don't get me wrong, they're horrible. But they're anything if not predictable in their reaction to everything, which makes it a bit more damning sometimes during various conflicts when people try to say "there's nothing anyone else could have done to prevent this!"
Is there anything you might consider fair to be done is a better question.
But really, when you take a political power that maintains roughly a similar stance and motivation for the long term, and is not only extremely reactionary, but reactionary in incredibly predictable ways, that's fish in a barrel for foreign policy. But instead, in some baffling move, Israel steps right into every one of the plays Hamas makes.
Hell. maybe some of the things raised here are more right than people gave credit for : Maybe the human shield thing is at least partially true (willing to admit it might be to some degree), and maybe the kidnapping/murder of the three teens was directly Hamas orders (evidence seems to indicate otherwise, but it's not outside of realm of possibility). But even if that's true, why in the HELL would you fall right into the playbook as good as they've been doing?
It's a situation where it's hard to find a winning move, granted, but every move played so far, intentionally or otherwise, hasn't just been a non-winning move but has instead been the worst possible move you could attempt in terms of not sparking international outrage. (And for gods sake find the politicians that are making public statements about "we should deport or kill everyone in Gaza" and get them to shut up. Not helping matters right now!)
I'm not keen to get into the Israel vs. Palestine debate. But there are a couple of points I want to make.
Hamas is the aggressor here. Hamas is the one indiscriminately slaughtering civilians on the Israel side of the border, and being absolutely outrageously shamelessly disrespectful of the lives of the people on their side of the border. Hamas is the one brainwashing their citizens to kill Jews and become martyrs. I've got no problem with you disagreeing with Israel's policies and decisions in this conflict because they do some real facepalm-inducing things. But to say Israel is the number one problem and not Hamas I can not agree with. When Israel starts just slaughtering Palestinians indiscriminately and using it's people as pawns to score points through their deaths, and indoctrinating them into a holy war against Muslims starting with the children, then maybe we can install Israel as number one problem here, but not with Hamas still around and using their disgusting tactics.
Also, I've just seen you again post about Hamas' predictability. This imo is a dangerous assumption to make. Hamas are not using the same tactics because they've got nothing else. They're using the same tactics because they're effective. We have absolutely no way of predicting what Hamas will do if these tactics stop being effective, and personally, I think they will try something different. Hamas' tactics are well planned the way they exploit the sympathies of the "West". The way they stir up support for their cause. Look at the way they devastated Fatah with such brutal efficiency after their election victory. Hamas are not stupid. And underestimating them in such a way and thinking their behaviour can be predicted and controlled would be very dangerous.
As for those politicans, I guess they need to read that document that was posted today. :)
-
Any attempt at peace would have to involve removing those stirring the pot (terrorists).
Which Israel probably doesn't want to do because it's "not their problem" however, since terrorists have a penchant for making it your problem, I would think it would be best to purge them by force. However, they would face near universal condemnation for this.
As for an international solution, I don't think that would be wise considering the make up of the UN. (Think of the ridiculous selections for countries to head up the human rights council, I mean, really??)
-
I was talking about the "previous" IRA, not the one from the Troubles. The one all the best songs are about. :) There was a popular uprising, on Easter 1916. They had other differences to Hamas, definitely less formal, but they had a lot of popular support. And boy, did they hate the "Black and Tans"... British also thought them terrorists, but in Ireland, they're heroes.
I don't really want to delve into the history of Ireland here despite it being something of a personal passion (my paternal family hails from county Limerick in the south, the maternal from county Derry in the north), but the narrative surrounding the period of 1910 to 1921 in Ireland is extremely contentious and I would caution you to actually study that history in an academic setting or manner prior to drawing conclusions from it in a meaningful way. Regardless, the events leading to the founding of the Republic of Ireland are in no meaningful way comparable to Hamas of today (most notably because it was a much more conventional conflict wherein those that fought to create an Irish state weren't going out of their way to attack civilian populations).
Also, what about "Mandate of Palestine" and "Emirate of Transjordan" from before WWII? They were where Israel is now. Weren't those nations in their own right? OK, the map I have lists them as British territory, but it was pre-WWII.
No, they were not. There has never been a country/state/empire called Palestine. It has always been a region defined more by its borders with other places than a governed autonomous entity unto itself, and it has never been ethnically or religiously homogenous.
I know for a fact that I've posted a link in here at least twice (possibly three times) to the Hamas leadership openly refuting their willingness to accept a two state solution. I'm on a phone or I'd look up the exact posts for you.
Go back a page or two and look at the quote i provided. Keep in mind it was spoken recently.
The Hamas Charter (or whatever other name people want it to go by, it varies) has not been amended with this stance. Hamas leaders have verbally stated in their negotiations with Fatah that they're willing to contemplate a two-state solution, but the organization has not formally adopted that position throughout.
Every rebellion is more or less elected. Just not without the formalities or tight controls you see in the first world (although ironically many informal elections can be more fair than "formal" elections in countries like the US with broken electoral systems). Much like criminal enterprise, sure there's the elements of intimidation, suppression, violence (those historically exist in many democracies as well), but ultimately, desperate people vote with their feet just as much as upstanding citizens vote with a ballot. By being a part of rebel group you signify that you support that group as your best chance out of the current situation. When you're willing to die supporting a group, the idea that you need a formal election to signify that you support them is an unnecessary formality.
Most 'rebellions' have extremely limited participation in the first place. In the last international poll with a meaningful scientific methodology, Hamas was supported by less than 37% of the Gazan population. They had much greater support in the election; which goes to my point that Gaza was willing to elect a group that had violence central to its core identity, despite it being capable of legitimate political activity. That they immediately showed their colours as a group of thugs more interested in ideology than human life on either side should come as a surprise to no one, least of all the people who elected them.
Moving on. You can't keep waffling between calling Palestine a state or a non-state when it suits your argument. Terms like "another country's civilians" imply that it's another country, which by legal rulings as well as most practical metrics, it isn't. And like I said in earlier post. They aren't the biggest factor against peace. Hamas is manageable, because even as monsters, they're insanely predictable monsters, with now a very limited playbook.
It's as multiple people have been hinting at saying, there's a certain point when it can be no longer "negligence" or "it seems clearer in hindsight". Israel is not even trying to avoid stepping in the mud because they know no meaningful consequences will come from the mud stepping.
The fact that the US, Israel's most important ally, has been criticizing Israel for not taking the peace process seriously since as far back as Clinton (i think someone here actually said it goes back further), should really say something here.
We come down harder on Israel more than any of the other places in the Middle East because they're a damn first world country, with a very advanced military, educated populace, and experienced politicians. They should be able to handle this. Instead, they've let a situation persist that fans the flames of unrest both in the region as well as the rest of the world. They may not be fully causing the situation but they've done only the most trifling moves to try and fix it. And don't bring up pulling out of Gaza or the "relaxed" situation in the West Bank, those aren't really moves to peace considering that even from when each was initiated, they've been tactical moves that benefit Israel greatly, while, under best interpretations, only maintain the status quo for Palestinians (their lives continue to suck, I'm not sure they'd find much solace that the reasons life sucks for them technically changed). Making moves that benefit yourself does not necessarily mean you're moving towards peace.
The claim that there's nothing that Israel can do to get close to peace without the other side moving first is something that has been more and more flimsy with every decade that's passed.
I am not waffling. I have been very clear. Palestine is not a historical state. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are independent state entities of Israel which most people (myself included) would like to see become the modern state of Palestine. And the ordinary residents of Gaza and the West Bank are not the biggest barrier to peace; Hamas is. This is not because Hamas is particularly effective. Rather, this is because Hamas provides a convenient and at least partially legitimate rationale for Israel to drag its feet in the peace process.
Every time Hamas attacks Israel or Israelis, it gives Israel an excuse. It once again reduces the legitimate plight of ordinary residents of Gaza and West Bank to a sideshow while Western nations - rightly, in my view - focus on the fact that a nation does not have to endure constant attacks from outside its borders without acting in its own defense, particularly when its civilians are being targeted.
Hamas, and the attacks from Gaza and the West Bank, are the barrier to peace because, without them, the entire progressive world is on the side of the two-state solution and a final resolution between Israeli and the Palestinian territories. I readily admit that I am of the mindset that so long as Hamas is attacking Israel, I do not believe it should tolerate so much as a single dead Israeli or rocket landing and can take retaliatory measures (while minimizing civilian casualties to the greatest possible extent). So long as Hamas fires at Israel, I care far more about the damage being wrought on a democratic state's civilian population than I care about the damage and death toll being wrought in a state run by a listed terrorist organization at the point of a gun which spends its funding financing terrorism instead of improving the prospects of its people.
Of course, the moment Israel is not experiencing violence at the hands of said armed thugs, my calculus changes, and I am firmly of the mindset that the international community basically needs to force both sides to the bargaining table and into a two-state solution and quickly as possible, with international enforcement. But again, that can and only will happen if the constant attacks on Israel are removed from the equation. I have a LOT of problems with the way Israel does business and has been negotiating with the Palestinian territories; but those take a backseat when the illegitimate armed thugs start shooting at civilian populations in a democratic state, and always will.
-
Of course, the moment Israel is not experiencing violence at the hands of said armed thugs, my calculus changes, and I am firmly of the mindset that the international community basically needs to force both sides to the bargaining table and into a two-state solution and quickly as possible, with international enforcement. But again, that can and only will happen if the constant attacks on Israel are removed from the equation. I have a LOT of problems with the way Israel does business and has been negotiating with the Palestinian territories; but those take a backseat when the illegitimate armed thugs start shooting at civilian populations in a democratic state, and always will.
The problem with hard lines for peace is they're easily abused by people who don't want peace, and it's been more or less confirmed people on both sides exist for this. I assert that given the context that existed so far, it is unlikely attacks in Israel (again, not 'on', that distinction is very important) will ever stop. You cannot keep that level of control over a populace without someone instituting firm established government and civilian police structures. Internally, it's extremely unlikely Gaza can achieve those structures under current conditions. Externally, it's unlikely that Israel would want to create such conditions (and further unlikely they could be successful even if they did, because, try governing people that hate you... it doesn't work so well).
That said. The reason why I say that ceasing hostile actions can't be a peace requirement is because every piece of evidence says that it's unlikely to ever happen until after a successful peace plan (and possibly not perfectly so even then). Note that violence against civilians (both Arab on Israeli and vice versa) still happens in the West Bank, and Israel in general.
Also, your words work in both directions about Hamas. They act this way because it's gotten results. People are actually talking about peace and two state solutions again when even a year ago the world could care less. Maybe if peaceful action got results sometimes it'd enter their calculus. Or maybe it wouldn't. But the best way to be able to attack them as violence loving thugs would be for Israel to offer some legitimate step towards peace and have Hamas slap it from their hands. Possibly a few times so the world gets the point. Right now, since most talk about "they won't accept peace" is speculative, people are less than won over by the argument.
If you want attacks reduced, that's an acceptable condition. In fact more moderate parties have said in their suggested deals that they expect some means of guaranteeing a level of self-policing against militant groups in Gaza is a strong requirement for a peace deal. But, complete peace being achieved, well, before peace is achieved? It's never going to happen. No realistically offered peace deal should require something that is highly unlikely to happen.
Also as a note on that, I believe either here or elsewhere (forgive me, it's been a lot of conversations recently), someone noted that in 2013, as part of an agreement to reduce the attacks, rocket attacks from Gaza reduced to the lowest they've been since 2002 (44). So, there is precedent for being able to reduce the attacks to a trifling amount, both in capacity and political will.
EDIT: Also as a note. It's not entirely wrong to say that white peace type agreements "lets everyone stop shooting for now and figure out the rest later", is well. It's a step towards peace in a technical way. But not so much an advantageous step towards long term peace because the status quo hasn't changed. Life still sucks for the Palestinians, the world goes back to not caring about them, and Israel continues to capitalize on it's superior momentum.
The "world goes back to not caring about them" is meaningful. Consider. Raise your hands here if you in your respective countries were aware that rocket attacks had dipped to such a low level in 2013. Anyone? Did your countries care at all in their foreign policy? Did Israel change any stances towards Gaza as a result of this? I really don't know the answer but given the current situation it seems like the answer is no.
-
OK, I checked more closely and it turned out the Emirate not only still exists as a part of Jordan (presumably it's citizens were moved east), but has remarkably little bad blood with Israel. Mandatory Palestine was a colonial hodgepodge that, as it turns out, has a long history of being a mess even without Israel being there. So I stand corrected. Oh, and Mandatory Palestine is what Hamas is trying to restore, they're bloody idiots. :)
I don't really want to delve into the history of Ireland here despite it being something of a personal passion (my paternal family hails from county Limerick in the south, the maternal from county Derry in the north), but the narrative surrounding the period of 1910 to 1921 in Ireland is extremely contentious and I would caution you to actually study that history in an academic setting or manner prior to drawing conclusions from it in a meaningful way. Regardless, the events leading to the founding of the Republic of Ireland are in no meaningful way comparable to Hamas of today (most notably because it was a much more conventional conflict wherein those that fought to create an Irish state weren't going out of their way to attack civilian populations).
Of course it was completely different. Different world (interwar), different country, different people... You're probably more competent in that area than me anyway, I'm no historian. There is no real precedent to an entity like Hamas in a "history repeats itself" sense. Nor was there anything like Israel ever created before. Even if parallels with other events can be drawn between generalities or very specific points, it might ultimately be meaningless. I could not find any historical situation remotely similar to what is happening in Israel. Hamas is half-rebellion, half-government, Israel has be artificially formed, with most of it's population being immigrants... Nothing like that ever happened before.
-
Also:
"IDF Hamas Human Shield Manual a Sloppy Forgery"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=boAYuOgqzJQ
-
Nope. Don't get me wrong, they're horrible. But they're anything if not predictable in their reaction to everything, which makes it a bit more damning sometimes during various conflicts when people try to say "there's nothing anyone else could have done to prevent this!"
Is there anything you might consider fair to be done is a better question.
But really, when you take a political power that maintains roughly a similar stance and motivation for the long term, and is not only extremely reactionary, but reactionary in incredibly predictable ways, that's fish in a barrel for foreign policy. But instead, in some baffling move, Israel steps right into every one of the plays Hamas makes.
Hell. maybe some of the things raised here are more right than people gave credit for : Maybe the human shield thing is at least partially true (willing to admit it might be to some degree), and maybe the kidnapping/murder of the three teens was directly Hamas orders (evidence seems to indicate otherwise, but it's not outside of realm of possibility). But even if that's true, why in the HELL would you fall right into the playbook as good as they've been doing?
It's a situation where it's hard to find a winning move, granted, but every move played so far, intentionally or otherwise, hasn't just been a non-winning move but has instead been the worst possible move you could attempt in terms of not sparking international outrage. (And for gods sake find the politicians that are making public statements about "we should deport or kill everyone in Gaza" and get them to shut up. Not helping matters right now!)
I'm not keen to get into the Israel vs. Palestine debate. But there are a couple of points I want to make.
Hamas is the aggressor here. Hamas is the one indiscriminately slaughtering civilians on the Israel side of the border, and being absolutely outrageously shamelessly disrespectful of the lives of the people on their side of the border. Hamas is the one brainwashing their citizens to kill Jews and become martyrs. I've got no problem with you disagreeing with Israel's policies and decisions in this conflict because they do some real facepalm-inducing things. But to say Israel is the number one problem and not Hamas I can not agree with. When Israel starts just slaughtering Palestinians indiscriminately and using it's people as pawns to score points through their deaths, and indoctrinating them into a holy war against Muslims starting with the children, then maybe we can install Israel as number one problem here, but not with Hamas still around and using their disgusting tactics.
Also, I've just seen you again post about Hamas' predictability. This imo is a dangerous assumption to make. Hamas are not using the same tactics because they've got nothing else. They're using the same tactics because they're effective. We have absolutely no way of predicting what Hamas will do if these tactics stop being effective, and personally, I think they will try something different. Hamas' tactics are well planned the way they exploit the sympathies of the "West". The way they stir up support for their cause. Look at the way they devastated Fatah with such brutal efficiency after their election victory. Hamas are not stupid. And underestimating them in such a way and thinking their behaviour can be predicted and controlled would be very dangerous.
As for those politicans, I guess they need to read that document that was posted today. :)
The Netanyahu government knew at once that they [the three teenagers] were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas. Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie, as recognized early on. There has been no pretense of presenting evidence. One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.” The Israeli police have since been searching for two members of the clan, still claiming, without evidence, that they are “Hamas terrorists.”
The 18-day rampage however did succeed in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. According to Israeli military sources, Israeli soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians, including 335 affiliated with Hamas, and killed six Palestinians, also searching thousands of locations and confiscating $350,000. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7.
Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.
Hamas did NOT fire the first shot. Israel did so with no provocation other than their accusation that Hamas was behind the killings of the three teenagers, for which they still have presented NO evidence. I'm stunned how the positions you and others have taken in this thread are so easily shattered by facts readily available to all. Or you know, a working memory of events that happened a month ago. I vividly remember my jaw dropping that Israel would bomb the West Bank with no provocation and no evidence, before any rockets were fired. It's a convenient time to have the memory of an Alzheimer's sufferer.
-
Also:
"IDF Hamas Human Shield Manual a Sloppy Forgery"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=boAYuOgqzJQ
Now here's a gem from 2005: IDF to appeal ruling by Israeli courts that the use of Palestinians as "human shields" when apprehending terrorists is illegal.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3154142,00.html
And here's a story about Israeli soldiers being given suspended sentences for using a 13 year old boy to open bags they suspected of containing explosives:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/26/israel-soldiers-punishment-using-boy-human-shield-inadequate
We can just keep piling up the evidence, you know.
-
The Netanyahu government knew at once that they [the three teenagers] were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas. Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie, as recognized early on. There has been no pretense of presenting evidence. One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.” The Israeli police have since been searching for two members of the clan, still claiming, without evidence, that they are “Hamas terrorists.”
The 18-day rampage however did succeed in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. According to Israeli military sources, Israeli soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians, including 335 affiliated with Hamas, and killed six Palestinians, also searching thousands of locations and confiscating $350,000. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7.
Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.
Hamas did NOT fire the first shot. Israel did so with no provocation other than their accusation that Hamas was behind the killings of the three teenagers, for which they still have presented NO evidence. I'm stunned how the positions you and others have taken in this thread are so easily shattered by facts readily available to all. Or you know, a working memory of events that happened a month ago. I vividly remember my jaw dropping that Israel would bomb the West Bank with no provocation and no evidence, before any rockets were fired. It's a convenient time to have the memory of an Alzheimer's sufferer.
Cards on the table, I simply did not know.
This thread began not as a debate on this conflict, but as Sandwich telling us about him being called up to potentially participate in the ground offensive. So that was already some time after, and it was some time after that that the debate finally began, and that was looking back at the 16th July the first mention and got going at the 17th. And even then it wasn't in it's current form, and it was about the response to the rockets.
I don't think Hamas not firing the first shot refutes my claim that Hamas is the biggest problem, but the way things have turned in this thread against Israel is making me wonder if Israel is the side that should be condemned for this particular outbreak of violence. Reading the stuff even before you posted has been making me feel uneasy.
-
You can try to make this equivocation all you like, but you have no historical precedent to do so. The fact remains that the only population that has knowingly elected a listed terrorist organization who made pre-election promises and statements that they knew would eventually provoke violence and retaliation from their neighbouring country is.... Gaza. They're on a whole different level when it comes to electing scumbags, I'm genuinely very sorry to say, and they have paid for it dearly.
About the only thing you have which keeps you safe there is the word terrorist. Israel have in the past voted for a known war criminal who otherwise complete fits your statement.
I'm sorry to keep pounding on this point, but I am constantly amazed at the lengths some people here are willing to go to to minimize Hamas' behaviour. They are a listed terrorist organization, they intentionally target civilians, they intentionally murder civilians when open hostilities are not engaged in, they terrorize and subjugate their own civilian population, they divert funding from economic projects to funding their terrorism (including weapons stockpiling, tunnel infrastructure, etc), they use their own civilians as human shields and the bodies of those same civilians to score political sympathy points, they occupy safe zones and fire weapons from them, and they oppose the very existence of their neighbouring state. They start open hostilities to win concessions, and then they use those concessions to fund continual violence.
And who exactly do you think is saying they don't? I've repeatedly said Hamas are scumbags. What worries me is when people don't realise that Likud are scumbags too. They're just able to hide it a lot better because they have better resources.
Israel is no saint. They deserve criticism for their tactics, their strategic outlook, and their heavy-handed use of military force to respond to Hamas. But there is not a world in which I will support Hamas over Israel, or try to equate the two. Nobody in the regional is particularly noble, but one side on the armed conflict is notably worse than the other for long-term peace and prosperity, and its name starts with H. I have genuine sympathy for Gaza and the West Bank, and I'd like the world to collectively put its boot in Israel's ass to deal with the situation, but when the rockets start flying to civilian zones or the kidnapping and murder of civilians starts, I will never concede that Hamas is even remotely excusable in its actions.
1. First you have to prove that Hamas was responsible for the kidnap of those three teenagers. Cause pretty much every single piece of evidence I've seen actually points to another group who Hamas don't even like.
2. While I'm not defending the rocket attacks, you have to realise that they didn't start this. Israel started this whole mess off with Operation Brother's Keeper. Rocket attacks are literally all Hamas has to make a point. Cause no one gave a **** when Israel started Operation Brother's Keeper.
I fully believe it is possible to criticize Israel and recognize it's villainous behaviour in some aspects of this historical conflict, while simultaneously recognizing that Hamas are actually villains deserving of global and unequivocable condemnation.
I think you need to realise that they are both villains.
They aren't noble freedom fighters; they're the singular largest factor standing between the status quo and a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both Israel and a multi-faith state called Palestine existing in the region formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine.
And Likud are next in line right behind them. Cause they don't want a state of Palestine any more than Hamas want a state of Israel.
The Hamas Charter (or whatever other name people want it to go by, it varies) has not been amended with this stance. Hamas leaders have verbally stated in their negotiations with Fatah that they're willing to contemplate a two-state solution, but the organization has not formally adopted that position throughout.
So Likud's stated position on Palestine is exactly the same as Hamas' stated position on Israel then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud#Charter
Charter
The 1999 Likud Party platform emphasizes the right of settlement.
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
Similarly, they claim the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and it also claims Jerusalem as belonging to Israel.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."
With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state. "Netanyahu has hinted that he does not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, but aides say he must move cautiously because his religious-nationalist coalition partners refuse to give away land."
On 14 June 2009, Netanyahu delivered a seminal address at Bar-Ilan University (also known as "Bar-Ilan Speech"), at Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, that was broadcast live in Israel and across parts of the Arab world, on the topic of the Middle East peace process. He endorsed for the first time the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with several conditions.
The Likud Constitution[31] of May 2014 is more vague and ambiguous. Though it contains commitments to the strengthening of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, it does not explicitly rule out the establishment of a Palestinian state.
I have a LOT of problems with the way Israel does business and has been negotiating with the Palestinian territories; but those take a backseat when the illegitimate armed thugs start shooting at civilian populations in a democratic state, and always will.
I'm sorry but I have to completely disagree with you. Israel should be forced to come to the table and talk peace now or it should be left to its own devices. But while they have America backing them up they know that they don't need to talk peace. The price for this is that Hamas will occasionally make largely ineffectual attacks on Israel. Likud simply don't care about this. The price is low enough to pay if it allows them to continue working on their Zionist view of what Israel should be.
They are quite happy to let Hamas continue attacking civilians to give them a rational to go on doing what they doing.
By demanding a stupid precondition which will never happen you allow Israel to continue their current policies. You fall right into the trap Likud want you to fall into. This is exactly the kind of naive "but they started it!" argument that has led to the situation dragging on as long as it has. It doesn't matter who started it. It matters that it ends now. Stop being part of the problem.
-
-snip-
What I think many people miss is that Hamas and Likud are in two different leagues when it comes to scumbaggery. It's also notable that Likud democratically controls the State of Israel, with its existing checks and balances, for the moment. Hamas controls Gaza until they get ousted by force of arms or concede to voluntarily give up control (ha!). It's like saying central Canada and Antarctica are both cold in the winter. While true, central Canada is a hell of a lot less cold in its winter than Antarctica.
Likud is full of scumbags that oppose the two-state solution and are willing to carry out operations in Palestinian territories on dubious grounds, while attempting to minimize civilian casualties in at least some semblance of an attempt to follow international law. Hamas is willing to murder unarmed civilians (and I actually wasn't referring to the three teens in the last post) and shoot rockets indiscriminately toward civilian population centers. The only thing that allows people to try to equate these things is that Hamas' weapons aren't that sophisticated and Israel is capable of intercepting the worst of them. If Hamas could hit Israel with advanced weapons and kill hundreds or thousands of civilians, they would without a second thought. Therein lies the difference between Hamas and Likud - Likud at least has to pay some attention to international law and try to protect civilian life. Hamas doesn't give a **** about the people in Gaza or Israel.
And as for all Hamas has to make a point being the rockets - this isn't true. Gaza has people. Gaza has journalists. Gaza has social media. Gaza has a hell of a lot better chance of garnering widespread sympathy without the scumbag terrorists in charge of it flinging live weapons indiscriminately at civilians. The rockets are literally the worst thing Gaza can do, short of flinging something even more deadly.
I'm sorry but I have to completely disagree with you. Israel should be forced to come to the table and talk peace now or it should be left to its own devices. But while they have America backing them up they know that they don't need to talk peace. The price for this is that Hamas will occasionally make largely ineffectual attacks on Israel. Likud simply don't care about this. The price is low enough to pay if it allows them to continue working on their Zionist view of what Israel should be.
They are quite happy to let Hamas continue attacking civilians to give them a rational to go on doing what they doing.
By demanding a stupid precondition which will never happen you allow Israel to continue their current policies. You fall right into the trap Likud want you to fall into. This is exactly the kind of naive "but they started it!" argument that has led to the situation dragging on as long as it has. It doesn't matter who started it. It matters that it ends now. Stop being part of the problem.
If Israel were left to its own devices today, it wouldn't make one iota of difference. There is literally nobody left that poses a serious and immediate existential threat to the entire state of Israel in practical terms, which is the only reason foreign aid has been historically necessary. Syria is too busy being in civil war. Jordan wants nothing to do with it. Egypt is a shambles. Iraq is in the middle of a theocratic genocide. Iran is too far away and frankly too smart to try picking a fight. The Saudis are too beholden to the Americans and Europeans to make serious waves. And if anyone started banding together to try to hit at Israel, they're sitting on a pile of nuclear weapons. Who likes that reality? It's not foreign aid that's preventing a serious engagement by Israel in the peace process. It's excuses. So long as they have the excuse of attacks on their civilians, Western nations will not place major pressure on Israel to settle, because none of them want a world in which a major power can be forced into concessions at the bargaining table at the point of a gun toward its populace [and quite rightly so]. This is the biggest reason why the historical doctrine of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" exists in principle, if not always in complete practice.
When you give Hamas even a slight pass and say Israel should sit down at the table while the attacks continue (a ceasefire is a different matter altogether), you suddenly have turned every humanitarian-minded foreign policy and global political mind from being your ally to your enemy, because in the grand political calculus that sets an awful precedent that will destabilize any potential peace deal. If Hamas can win concessions by targeting civilians, there is no reason for them to ever stop. And they won't. If you think for a single solitary second that Hamas would be content and never hit at Israel again with a functional two-state solution along the 1967 borders if we could have it set up tomorrow, you're delusional. The same goes for Likud's expansionist bull****. But you can't get rid of Likud without getting rid of Hamas first. Likud exists and holds power because organizations like Hamas exist; without them, Israeli moderates run the show and Likud is forced back to the fringes where they frankly belong.
As I've said from my first comments: the problem is Hamas, and/or movements like it.
-
And as a matter of demonstration, if anyone here actually believes Hamas' beliefs or tactics have even a single solitary shred of legitimacy to them, I strongly suggest you do some reading about what IS (formerly ISIS) is up to these days in Syria and Iraq, because that's a preview of a Palestinian state with Hamas in charge.
-
If Israel were left to its own devices today, it wouldn't make one iota of difference.
Well for one, my tax dollars wouldn't be wasted on someone that doesn't even need help "defending" themselves. So we'd have that going for us.
When you give Hamas even a slight pass and say Israel should sit down at the table while the attacks continue (a ceasefire is a different matter altogether), you suddenly have turned every humanitarian-minded foreign policy and global political mind from being your ally to your enemy, because in the grand political calculus that sets an awful precedent that will destabilize any potential peace deal.
You see. That makes sense without any other context, but still doesn't change what Kara and I said. Complete cessation of attacks will NEVER happen. It's pretty damn impressive that it was down to 44 in 2013 (-98% relative to previous year). If that is not a good enough standard for peace, nothing short of 0 attacks will be. Which again, will never happen. We can't keep the United States even completely free of rebellious or terrorist attacks for a year... so no. If you want 0, it's never going to happen. A -98% reduction in attacks is more than enough to trigger peace table discussions without "enabling terrorism".
Anyone that wants to quibble over that remaining 2% is either being far too idealistic, or not actually interested in peace.
EDIT: As an extra note. Groups other than Hamas generally claimed responsibility very loudly for the rocket attacks that did happen in 2013. Also apparently the complete total is 52 rockets, 18 mortars. Still the lowest number in over a decade.
-
What I think many people miss is that Hamas and Likud are in two different leagues when it comes to scumbaggery.
No. What many people miss is any logic in siding with the least wrong party when both of them are still very, very wrong. When one person states that dinosaurs were insects and one says that they were fish you say that they are BOTH wrong.
You can go on and on all you like about how Hamas would have a higher death count if they were able to but you assume facts not in evidence. If Hamas could kill thousands of Israelis perhaps that might actually end the war since Israel wouldn't be able to do what they are currently doing. Possibly not but the simple fact is that it's irrelevant anyway. Hamas don't have access to that kind of weaponry.
You're doing the same crap that has caused this situation to drag on for years. Claiming that since you can "prove" the Palestinians are worse there is no reason to talk with them.
If Israel were left to its own devices today, it wouldn't make one iota of difference. There is literally nobody left that poses a serious and immediate existential threat to the entire state of Israel in practical terms, which is the only reason foreign aid has been historically necessary.[
So why are the West still funding them then?
Western nations will not place major pressure on Israel to settle, because none of them want a world in which a major power can be forced into concessions at the bargaining table at the point of a gun toward its populace [and quite rightly so]. This is the biggest reason why the historical doctrine of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" exists in principle, if not always in complete practice.
When you give Hamas even a slight pass and say Israel should sit down at the table while the attacks continue (a ceasefire is a different matter altogether), you suddenly have turned every humanitarian-minded foreign policy and global political mind from being your ally to your enemy, because in the grand political calculus that sets an awful precedent that will destabilize any potential peace deal. If Hamas can win concessions by targeting civilians, there is no reason for them to ever stop. And they won't. If you think for a single solitary second that Hamas would be content and never hit at Israel again with a functional two-state solution along the 1967 borders if we could have it set up tomorrow, you're delusional. The same goes for Likud's expansionist bull****. But you can't get rid of Likud without getting rid of Hamas first. Likud exists and holds power because organizations like Hamas exist; without them, Israeli moderates run the show and Likud is forced back to the fringes where they frankly belong.
As I've said from my first comments: the problem is Hamas, and/or movements like it.
Yet Hamas only exist because of Israel. And sitting back with a "We don't negotiate with terrorists" attitude won't get rid of them. Nor will Israel's current policy. Nor will sending in ground troops.
What you forget is that in many cases negotiations with terrorists does work (c.f South Africa and Northern Ireland). Notice I say negotiations, not concessions. You keep equating the two and they are not the same thing. Gaza is also in a strange position of having the terrorists as the government.
You keep claiming Hamas are the government of Gaza but when you want to avoid talking about peace they are suddenly terrorists and not a government. If you aren't going to talk to the government of the country you are at war with about peace, you will never have peace.
-
And as a matter of demonstration, if anyone here actually believes Hamas' beliefs or tactics have even a single solitary shred of legitimacy to them, I strongly suggest you do some reading about what IS (formerly ISIS) is up to these days in Syria and Iraq, because that's a preview of a Palestinian state with Hamas in charge.
Do I really have to say this? Very well. Hamas is a political party of some legitimacy within Palestine (their electoral victory in 2006 was as much due to corruption allegations towards Fatah as anything else). They are also a terrorist organization guilty of deliberate attacks upon civilian targets. Their targeting of residential districts in Israel with rockets is a war crime. Almost every action Hamas has engaged in is detrimental to the goal of peace. And yet their actions have still been more conductive towards a peaceful settlement than the government of Israel, which has killed, on average, two Palestinian children every week for the last 14 years. The government of Israel rejects the possibility of a two state solution because its objective, as its own party platforms state, is the conquest and annexation of the West Bank. The destruction of Gaza is conductive to that goal because without Gaza the Palestinians living in the West Bank will be isolated from the outside world and trapped between Israel and a hostile Jordan. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and Israel is an aggressive state committed to continued expansion, over the security interests of its own people.
What holds it back is its dependence upon US economic, military, and diplomatic support, without which it would be unable to continue it's expansionist policies much as South African was unable to continue Apartheid after Reagan quietly ended US support due to increasing public pressure. If Israel is too aggressive American public opinion will compel a change in US policy that would be disastrous to Israel goals. Hence Israel tries to keep its aggression as low profile and PR-friendly as possible; the steady construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank, scattered but continued incidents of violence and brutality against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank so as not to provoke too much western media attention, the blockade and imprisonment of the Gazan population - enough to make the population suffer dearly but not quite enough to cause a PR-damaging humanitarian crisis (as detailed in Chomsky's article), and finally, bombings of heavily populated areas once it has waited for Hamas to give it provocation it can sell to the uninformed US public (sometimes without provocation, as in 2006 in punishing the Palestinian population for voting the wrong way in a free election, or in 2014 due to the killings of the three Israeli boys for which Israel still cannot present evidence for), which will of course result in escalating counterattacks by Hamas which will justify the initial bombings.
The claims of Israel that it gives care to avoid civilian casualties simply do not hold up when you look at Israel's choice of targets, which include power, water, and sewage treatment plants (repeatedly), hospitals (repeatedly), UN schools acting as refugee centers, and if available, little boys playing on the beach (https://twitter.com/petersbeaumont/status/489419727857385472). They warn civilians to evacuate their homes so they can flee to areas that are also under Israeli bombardment; no place in Gaza is safe. These attacks are not conductive to the long term security of the Israeli people; they create more terrorists among the survivors and hatred abroad. But they do make sense if the goal is to try to break the will (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/gaza/11020070/Gaza-conflict-causing-PTSD-in-children-after-seeing-dead-bodies-and-witnessing-heavy-shelling.html) of the Palestinians to resist the gradual conquest of their land (which is course does not even belong to them according to Israel). It is not like Apartheid; with Apartheid at least the Boers needed blacks for their labor force, so they had to invest some resources into making the Bantustans livable. Israel by contrast does not need the Palestianians for laborers anymore. What they want is to get rid of the Palestinian questionproblem entirely, by any means necessary.
So yes, Hamas are terrorists. They're a worse version of the IRA. I have no sympathy for them. Nor do I have any sympathy for the Israeli government which is committed to a slow, grinding, murderous war of conquest, damn the consequences to the Palestinians or their own people, whom they have duped into believing that this slaughter of innocents is morally justified and will somehow make them safer (an experience Americans are all too familiar with). I have sympathy for everyone else. Have I made my opinion perfectly clear?
Here's a picture of the father of one of the boys who was shelled by an Israeli gunboat off the coast while playing football on the beach, for your enjoyment. (http://i.imgur.com/3XsIgTL.jpg)
-
Thank you for summing up my position more eloquently than I've been able till now. y a
I'll only add that MP_Ryan seems to be incapable of realising that it isn't only Hamas who breaks the ceasefires.
-
When you give Hamas even a slight pass and say Israel should sit down at the table while the attacks continue (a ceasefire is a different matter altogether), you suddenly have turned every humanitarian-minded foreign policy and global political mind from being your ally to your enemy, because in the grand political calculus that sets an awful precedent that will destabilize any potential peace deal. If Hamas can win concessions by targeting civilians, there is no reason for them to ever stop. And they won't. If you think for a single solitary second that Hamas would be content and never hit at Israel again with a functional two-state solution along the 1967 borders if we could have it set up tomorrow, you're delusional. The same goes for Likud's expansionist bull****. But you can't get rid of Likud without getting rid of Hamas first. Likud exists and holds power because organizations like Hamas exist; without them, Israeli moderates run the show and Likud is forced back to the fringes where they frankly belong.
As I've said from my first comments: the problem is Hamas, and/or movements like it.
Quoting myself, because it seems the other three people who posted since didn't bother to read it.
All of your arguments are great. They demonstrate - admirably - that Israel aren't "the good guys." Of course, I haven't been saying Israel ARE the good guys, so I'm not entirely sure why you're bothering to try to make that point in my direction.
What I have been arguing - repeatedly - is that if one supports a long-term peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian territories, one cannot then argue that Israel should sit down and negotiate with Hamas while attacks are ongoing against its civilian population (and no, Dark, the US has never done this and no, kara, neither did the UK with the IRA). A ceasefire, however temporary, changes that calculus, regardless of whether it is broken periodically on single occasions. Nowhere have I said that the condition of negotiation should be all attacks out of Gaza stop permanently never to happen on occasion during the negotiations because I know full well that is unrealistic. The idea that Hamas, which is at least somewhat organized militarily, stop and actively try to prevent additional attacks while a ceasefire is in effect is.
I have never claimed Hamas is not the government of Gaza. Rather, I have repeatedly pointed out that Hamas was elected as the government of Gaza and now runs the territory undemocratically entirely by force, with a minority of popular support. They also happen to be a terrorist organization whose ultimate goals mirror that of the Muslim Brotherhood and, most recently, IS. These are all very good reasons to minimize Hamas' influence on the peace process to the greatest possible extent. A two-state solution with Hamas at its present level of influence (most of which is due to force projection) is untenable, because, again, their goals are incompatible with a long-term peace process.
Vega brought up the choice of Israeli targets. While Israel has predominantly hit at fighting forces, rocket launch sites, and personnel staging areas (which have also included some supposed safe zones due to Hamas hiding in them, an action I doubt believe to be excuseable regardless), they also hit at critical infrastructure... though not consistently and typically not enough to destroy it outright (while Gaza's sole power station is damaged, it's not a smoking crater so there is some restraint being realized). There is a tactical and political purpose to this, and it's to make Gaza as a whole pay for the actions of Hamas. Brutal political calculus? Absolutely. Potential war crime? Maybe. Effective? Definitely. Hamas does not command popular support, and more and more Gazans are wishing for a return of the PA government.
I want to see a long-term peace agreement in the region as or more badly than anyone. However, Hamas is a long term security threat to the stability of the entire region, and an even greater one where they operate in a state without blockades, controls, and with an effectively unarmed government of the PA as their sole opposition. Want to see Palestine turn into a fundamentalist, rights-abusing caliphate? Negotiate a two-state solution with Hamas at its current level of power. They'd take Palestine by force of arms in less than a year, and we'd be back worse off than where everyone in the region started.
-
What do you call the situation before Brother's Keeper? Before 2006?
If you want what you call a ceasefire you'll never, ever get it. Especially when Israel will just provoke Hamas into breaking it as soon as things get too peaceful for their liking (as they did this time).
All you are succeeding in doing is allowing Israel to continue what they are doing.
I'll also add this here. Since recognition of Israel by Hamas seems to be a sticking point for you.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/in-2006-letter-to-bush-haniyeh-offered-compromise-with-israel-1.257213
-
All you are succeeding in doing is allowing Israel to continue what they are doing.
Which is murder, MPRyan. It can't even be called collateral damage. Eighty percent of the dead and wounded are civilians. Was the football game on the beach a staging area?
-
the ball was clearly a bomb comeon
-
What do you call the situation before Brother's Keeper? Before 2006?
Periods when the entire West should have been pressuring Israel to complete negotiations with the PA?
The thing I find most tragic is that the activists who are most likely to excuse Hamas go suddenly silent and ignore the situation nearly as much as everyone else when Israel quits hitting back at Gaza. Part of the bloody problem.
If you want what you call a ceasefire you'll never, ever get it. Especially when Israel will just provoke Hamas into breaking it as soon as things get too peaceful for their liking (as they did this time).
All you are succeeding in doing is allowing Israel to continue what they are doing.
Right. And the deaths of 3 Israeli teens wherein the authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank did not aid in the capture of the perpetrators had nothing to do with it. Hamas' direct action or not, israel has arrested and is prosecuting the 6 people they identified as being involved in the retaliatory kidnapping and killing. If Hamas and the PA want to be a government of a foreign state, act like it; enforce the rule of law. Of course, if Hamas in particular did that they'd have to throw themselves out of power because they're a bunch of armed thugs that run a terrorist outfit, not a real government on behalf of the people of Gaza.
Again, I genuinely feel for the people of Gaza and the West Bank, I think they've been dealt a rotten hand, and I am firmly on their side in the grand political scheme of things. That said, Israel bowing to Hamas' terrorism, as opposed to negotiating with the PA in good faith, is a recipe for long-term disaster. What the West should be pushing for is an Israeli ongoing negotiation with the PA in the West Bank regardless of what Gaza and Hamas are up to, and minimize Hamas' involvement in the peace process. It ensures that if an accord can be reached, the PA and Israel can function as allies to track down, prosecute, and end both the oppression of Gaza by Hamas, and the terrorist attacks on Israel.
There's a theme to my posts, guys: Hamas is the problem. Minimizing, marginalizing, and destroying them should be the objective in addition to a peace agreement with the Palestinian territories and their people.
I'll also add this here. Since recognition of Israel by Hamas seems to be a sticking point for you.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/in-2006-letter-to-bush-haniyeh-offered-compromise-with-israel-1.257213
Today is August 8 2014. The Hamas Charter, the document that governs their movement, still calls for the destruction of Israel and does not accept the two-state solution. The Likud version still calls for settlements and opposes the two-state solution as well. Likud can be voted out. Hamas can't.
-
All you are succeeding in doing is allowing Israel to continue what they are doing.
Which is murder, MPRyan. It can't even be called collateral damage. Eighty percent of the dead and wounded are civilians. Was the football game on the beach a staging area?
And Hamas is known to intentionally shield their forces, weapons, and staging areas with civilians. This has been documented by independent sources many times.
As for the beach, if you have evidence to suggest Israel either intentionally or negligently targeted civilians (period), the ICC in The Hague would love to see it.
-
Likud can be voted out and still it was voted in.
-
So, two things being said...
1. zomg you exploded a thing
2. zomg they are surrounding their launch sites with civilians
Maybe it's been implied, but hasn't been explicitly stated... were there actually rockets being launched from these "absurd" airstrike targets?
One of the strangest examples... I don't know exactly what a "UN school" entails, but it seems to me that if something is operated by the UN, Hamas isn't going to be able to come in and use it as a staging area. How does that work?
If a functioning hospital were being used as a launch site, I could maybe go along with an airstrike. Maybe. But if it's anything less than an actual launch site (e.g. "they're storing weapons there" or "some enemy personnel are there") an airstrike is totally absurd.
All of this still assumes that the airstrikes actually had some immediate-short-term effect of making Israelis safer.
So now I hear talk of Israel pulling out its ground forces? Wtf, finish the damn job!
-
One of the strangest examples... I don't know exactly what a "UN school" entails, but it seems to me that if something is operated by the UN, Hamas isn't going to be able to come in and use it as a staging area. How does that work?
You might find these useful:
http://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are
http://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do/education
http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school
I'm not fully sure, but it seems like this is an agency funded by the UN and doesn't actually involve anything in military terms, but is there to provide a variety of social services.
-
So, two things being said...
1. zomg you exploded a thing
2. zomg they are surrounding their launch sites with civilians
Maybe it's been implied, but hasn't been explicitly stated... were there actually rockets being launched from these "absurd" airstrike targets?
One of the strangest examples... I don't know exactly what a "UN school" entails, but it seems to me that if something is operated by the UN, Hamas isn't going to be able to come in and use it as a staging area. How does that work?
If a functioning hospital were being used as a launch site, I could maybe go along with an airstrike. Maybe. But if it's anything less than an actual launch site (e.g. "they're storing weapons there" or "some enemy personnel are there") an airstrike is totally absurd.
All of this still assumes that the airstrikes actually had some immediate-short-term effect of making Israelis safer.
So now I hear talk of Israel pulling out its ground forces? Wtf, finish the damn job!
Hamas has occasionally tried to hide weapons in UN schools. Which is enough for Israel to justify the bombing of refugees.
-
In the case of at least one of the hits on/near the school, Israeli forces took fire from that location. To my knowledge the other instance has not yet been fully investigated, but is in the process of it.
Not that this dismisses the fact that Israeli forces should have been able to figure out it was a bloody school also full of refugees and instead sent in ground forces to begin with in both cases. Israel might be at least minimizing some civilian losses, but they could damn well do a better job of it.
-
but mp-ryan nobody would take israel seriously if they hadn't bombed those refugees, and besides it's the refugees' fault in the first place for voting hamas
-
Just like when bin Laden said American civilians were fair game because of who they had voted for!
-
All you are succeeding in doing is allowing Israel to continue what they are doing.
Which is murder, MPRyan. It can't even be called collateral damage. Eighty percent of the dead and wounded are civilians. Was the football game on the beach a staging area?
And Hamas is known to intentionally shield their forces, weapons, and staging areas with civilians. This has been documented by independent sources many times.
As for the beach, if you have evidence to suggest Israel either intentionally or negligently targeted civilians (period), the ICC in The Hague would love to see it.
http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201472316293283952
You were saying?
-
Periods when the entire West should have been pressuring Israel to complete negotiations with the PA?
The thing I find most tragic is that the activists who are most likely to excuse Hamas go suddenly silent and ignore the situation nearly as much as everyone else when Israel quits hitting back at Gaza. Part of the bloody problem.
Which people like you exacerbate by insisting on a ceasefire first. Why the **** should Hamas agree to ceasefire? What exactly have they gained from the other ceasefires?
Right. And the deaths of 3 Israeli teens wherein the authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank did not aid in the capture of the perpetrators had nothing to do with it.
Feel free to point me at a legitimate extradition request from Israel. ****, feel free to point me at any attempt to blame anyone other than Hamas from Israel.
Hamas' direct action or not, israel has arrested and is prosecuting the 6 people they identified as being involved in the retaliatory kidnapping and killing. If Hamas and the PA want to be a government of a foreign state, act like it; enforce the rule of law.
Seriously? You're going to try this nonsense? How the **** is the arrest of 300+ people remotely legal?
Again, I genuinely feel for the people of Gaza and the West Bank, I think they've been dealt a rotten hand, and I am firmly on their side in the grand political scheme of things. That said, Israel bowing to Hamas' terrorism, as opposed to negotiating with the PA in good faith, is a recipe for long-term disaster.
Israel hasn't tried to negotiate with Palestine good faith since the death of Yitzhak Rabin. If you really believe they'd do it even with Hamas gone, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
What the West should be pushing for is an Israeli ongoing negotiation with the PA in the West Bank regardless of what Gaza and Hamas are up to, and minimize Hamas' involvement in the peace process. It ensures that if an accord can be reached, the PA and Israel can function as allies to track down, prosecute, and end both the oppression of Gaza by Hamas, and the terrorist attacks on Israel.
Finally you say something sensible.
I still don't believe that precludes Hamas involvement in the process though. The more the PA seem like the sensible ones in the equation, the less likely Hamas can remain in the extremes as a viable alternative.
There's a theme to my posts, guys: Hamas is the problem. Minimizing, marginalizing, and destroying them should be the objective in addition to a peace agreement with the Palestinian territories and their people.
Unfortunately the theme involves waiting for something impossible to happen. Inviting Hamas to the table and letting people see that the West Bank gets what it wants while Gaza is ****ed over because of Hamas is far better than what you propose.
Today is August 8 2014. The Hamas Charter, the document that governs their movement, still calls for the destruction of Israel and does not accept the two-state solution. The Likud version still calls for settlements and opposes the two-state solution as well. Likud can be voted out. Hamas can't.
So?
That's all the more reason to bring Hamas to the table. To force them to change the document.
Assuming that words on a page are important. Cause **** knows that if Likud were ever voted out, it would only be to replace them with a party with the same aims who aren't as stupid as to quote them in a manifesto.
-
Pretty sure that charter was made for the benefit of the Israeli public, not us. To get them used to the idea of military expansion.
-
You were saying?
Yes, I was saying. The article you linked to says nothing more than the UN has voted to investigate. Nowhere does it suggest evidence that Israel has intentionally or negligently targeted civilians. If that turns out to be the case - which is the point of an investigation - then by all means Israel should face consequences for that. You keep leaping over the story of the kids on the beach as if its evidence that Israel is out to kill Gazan kids by intention or negligence, but there is no evidence of that to date. If and/or when that changes then I'll cast judgement; until such evidence is presented, I'm inclined to throw it on the board as another case of "when conflict starts, civilians die."
-
Which people like you exacerbate by insisting on a ceasefire first. Why the **** should Hamas agree to ceasefire? What exactly have they gained from the other ceasefires?
They've gained not having their civilians killed in retaliation for their attacks on Israel. Of course, hamas doesn't actually care one whit about civilian casualties on either side. Dead Gazans is a convenient narrative for them. The reason why hamas should agree to a ceasefire is because their ongoing attacks targeted on civilians are illegal under international law, and they are acting as provocation for Israel's counterattacks, which typically will not be considered illegal under those same international laws except in the most egregious cases. Whether Hamas benefits or not from a ceasefire is irrelevant; what IS relevant is that Hamas CANNOT BENEFIT from attacking civilians in what is considered terrorism under international law. You can't give a terrorist organization concessions in direct response to their attacks while they continue, and democracies don't.
Feel free to point me at a legitimate extradition request from Israel. ****, feel free to point me at any attempt to blame anyone other than Hamas from Israel.
Right after you point me to the investigation by the PA and/or Hamas where they arrested the perpetrators. Extradition can only occur where suspects are investigated, identified, and arrested. Neither the PA or Hamas did that.
Seriously? You're going to try this nonsense? How the **** is the arrest of 300+ people remotely legal?
You're misreading me. Israel arrested and is prosecuting the six people in Israel that killed the Palestinian kid following the death of the Israelis. Notice how this works: The democratic state with rule of law noted a crime within its borders, investigated, arrested suspects, and has charged them and will prosecute. Notice how the PA and Hamas didn't even try. If Hamas had nothing to do with it and was so interested in proclaiming their innocence, they should have been scrambling all over themselves to investigate and find the people who did and put them before an actual justice system. They didn't. Why? because they're scumbag terrorist who aren't interested in prosecuting people who murder Israelis (or anyone else, for that matter).
Israel hasn't tried to negotiate with Palestine good faith since the death of Yitzhak Rabin. If you really believe they'd do it even with Hamas gone, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
Nonsense. With Hamas gone and the associated violence, israel no longer has a choice. Western sentiment has shifted notably in the last decade. Hamas' continued existence is the only excuse they have left.
I still don't believe that precludes Hamas involvement in the process though. The more the PA seem like the sensible ones in the equation, the less likely Hamas can remain in the extremes as a viable alternative.
Unfortunately the theme involves waiting for something impossible to happen. Inviting Hamas to the table and letting people see that the West Bank gets what it wants while Gaza is ****ed over because of Hamas is far better than what you propose.
If Hamas is involved, the PA will not settle because they will not settle the West Bank without Gaza. If Hamas is removed from the equation as any meaningful contributor, the PA can negotiate on behalf of both the West Bank and Gaza.
Assuming that words on a page are important. Cause **** knows that if Likud were ever voted out, it would only be to replace them with a party with the same aims who aren't as stupid as to quote them in a manifesto.
I only bring up the words on the page since a few people are so persistent in quoting the words of Hamas' leader to show the contradiction. Hamas has not demonstrated in any meaningful way that it is willing to work toward a two-state solution. Hamas has shown - and their latest concession demands continue the trend - that they want more money, open borders, and more materiel without strings attached. Given that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, that means they're more interested in acquiring more weapons and improving their strike capabilities (tunnels) than improving life in Gaza or working toward peace since they also refuse any attempt to disarm in the process.
Hamas isn't the slightest bit interested in peace, and long-term peace isn't possible with them in the equation because they WILL disrupt it as often and brutally as possible. What's more, they don't care one whit about international pressure; Israel, on the other hand, does.
There are two realistic options available for a long-term peace accord:
1. Hamas agrees to a ceasefire, and Israel negotiates with the PA and a marginalized Hamas toward peace.
2. Israel and the PA forge ahead even during the Hamas attacks with an agreement for both West Bank and Gaza to be run independently by the PA, while actuively working toward the military destruction/disarmament of Hamas in Gaza.
The first requires Hamas to agree to a ceasefire. The second requires the PA to agree to negotiate and exclude Hamas, something Abbas would dearly like to do but is afraid to do because his own position is fairly tenuous.
-
You're refusing to comment on the arrest of more than 300 people. Or evidence that points away from Hamas and towards a rogue sect that was opposed to Hamas' 19 month peace with Israel (the Qawasmeh Clan). And how did any of this justify air strikes on the West Bank?
-
You're refusing to comment on the arrest of more than 300 people. Or evidence that points away from Hamas and towards a rogue sect that was opposed to Hamas' 19 month peace with Israel (the Qawasmeh Clan). And how did any of this justify air strikes on the West Bank?
Also. Should note that the final estimates for BK is 530 arrested. Otherwise, carry on.
-
Side note, Al-Shifa was apparently used as a Hamas Command post. Reporters knew but were afraid to report it for fear of retaliation.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/08/hamas-used-main-hospital-as-command-center/#vGDROdxVBWPoTT7z.01
-
You're misreading me. Israel arrested and is prosecuting the six people in Israel that killed the Palestinian kid following the death of the Israelis. Notice how this works: The democratic state with rule of law noted a crime within its borders, investigated, arrested suspects, and has charged them and will prosecute. Notice how the PA and Hamas didn't even try. If Hamas had nothing to do with it and was so interested in proclaiming their innocence, they should have been scrambling all over themselves to investigate and find the people who did and put them before an actual justice system. They didn't. Why? because they're scumbag terrorist who aren't interested in prosecuting people who murder Israelis (or anyone else, for that matter).
The PA's police has actually assisted Israel with the search efforts. Israeli forces have noted that this was "very proffesional"
Hamas hasn't, but hamas has no authority in the west bank.
It should also be noted that the West Bank is, according to Israel itself, not under their occupation. Even if the PA has been neglicient (and considering the time passed between the incident and Brother's Keeper, I don' t think that qualification can be made)... Would the Dutch or the Malysians be legitimized in invading Ukraine to find out what happened to MH12?
-
You're refusing to comment on the arrest of more than 300 people. Or evidence that points away from Hamas and towards a rogue sect that was opposed to Hamas' 19 month peace with Israel (the Qawasmeh Clan). And how did any of this justify air strikes on the West Bank?
I was never asked to comment on the arrests of more than 300 people (other than where kara misread my original point where he thought I brought it up). I have never said those actions were justified. I have said - ad nauseum - that the primary key to resolving this mess is the elimination of Hamas as a wielder of power in the Palestinian territories. Quit trying to construct arguments that I'm not making. You have some earlier factual misrepresentation to clear up instead, or do you still maintain that the link you posted is evidence that Israel intentionally or negligently targeted the civilians on the beach? I, for one, am going to wait for a proper investigation before leaping at conclusions.
For the record, I think Israel's initial response to the catalyst - the kidnap/murder of the teens - was hasty and heavy-handed, which happens to include the mass arrests and the recent "blame the PA too!" tactic. That said, hasty and heavy-handed doesn't justify the intentional targeting and attempted murder of civilians in populated areas. Israel didn't send forces into the West Bank to murder its residents; Hamas let loose rockets at Israeli population centers fully hoping to kill as many people as possible.
Nowhere have I said Israel is a blameless innocent in any of this mess. Most of what I've said about Israel is actually coincidental as it relates to Hamas' rocket fire.
You're misreading me. Israel arrested and is prosecuting the six people in Israel that killed the Palestinian kid following the death of the Israelis. Notice how this works: The democratic state with rule of law noted a crime within its borders, investigated, arrested suspects, and has charged them and will prosecute. Notice how the PA and Hamas didn't even try. If Hamas had nothing to do with it and was so interested in proclaiming their innocence, they should have been scrambling all over themselves to investigate and find the people who did and put them before an actual justice system. They didn't. Why? because they're scumbag terrorist who aren't interested in prosecuting people who murder Israelis (or anyone else, for that matter).
The PA's police has actually assisted Israel with the search efforts. Israeli forces have noted that this was "very proffesional"
That I hadn't heard, so thanks for that.
Hamas hasn't, but hamas has no authority in the west bank.
Hamas has no lawful authority in the West Bank, but they have significant power and influence outside the realm of lawful authority. If Hamas was truly interested in justice, especially if this was done by a rival sect, they have the resources to assist the PA in tracking down the actual perpetrators.
It should also be noted that the West Bank is, according to Israel itself, not under their occupation. Even if the PA has been neglicient (and considering the time passed between the incident and Brother's Keeper, I don' t think that qualification can be made)... Would the Dutch or the Malysians be legitimized in invading Ukraine to find out what happened to MH12?
In my view, that depends. If the foreign power is incapable and unwilling to investigate of its own accord, or the investigation is utterly incompetent, I think countries are well within their rights to send their own people to investigate, protecting them by force if necessary. The MH17 thing has me a little surprised actually, because I had assumed the Netherlands would have been doing some major lobbying to drop NATO troops into the crash area to protect the investigation team they did send, but that doesn't seem to be going to happen.
-
I was never asked to comment on the arrests of more than 300 people (other than where kara misread my original point where he thought I brought it up).
You have repeatedly argued that it was Hamas' illegal attacks on civilians which started this conflict. Will you agree that it was Israel's illegal arrests of Hamas members that started it?
They've gained not having their civilians killed in retaliation for their attacks on Israel. Of course, hamas doesn't actually care one whit about civilian casualties on either side. Dead Gazans is a convenient narrative for them. The reason why hamas should agree to a ceasefire is because their ongoing attacks targeted on civilians are illegal under international law, and they are acting as provocation for Israel's counterattacks, which typically will not be considered illegal under those same international laws except in the most egregious cases. Whether Hamas benefits or not from a ceasefire is irrelevant; what IS relevant is that Hamas CANNOT BENEFIT from attacking civilians in what is considered terrorism under international law. You can't give a terrorist organization concessions in direct response to their attacks while they continue, and democracies don't.
As I've repeatedly said, there is a difference between giving them concessions and talking to them. Israel is committed to the whole "We don't talk to terrorists" ideal which you also seem to be committed to. This ideal very rarely works. In the cases I mentioned previously (South Africa and Northern Ireland) peace was eventually secured precisely because people talked. Now I'm sure you're going to make some claim about how the situation there was different, fine. Find me a situation which was the same where ignoring the terrorists did result in a lasting peace.
You're misreading me. Israel arrested and is prosecuting the six people in Israel that killed the Palestinian kid following the death of the Israelis. Notice how this works: The democratic state with rule of law noted a crime within its borders, investigated, arrested suspects, and has charged them and will prosecute. Notice how the PA and Hamas didn't even try. If Hamas had nothing to do with it and was so interested in proclaiming their innocence, they should have been scrambling all over themselves to investigate and find the people who did and put them before an actual justice system. They didn't. Why? because they're scumbag terrorist who aren't interested in prosecuting people who murder Israelis (or anyone else, for that matter).
As has been pointed out to you, you're now expecting Hamas to go out of their way to prove their innocence since they are not the authority in the West Bank and the authorities in question did co-operate with the investigation. Instead of simply cooperating with any investigation by the PA, Hamas should have undertaken their own investigation into the matter so that Israel wouldn't illegally invade the West Bank. How is that remotely legal?
And when was their time for Hamas to conduct this investigation anyway? About 2 days passed between the kidnap and the invasion.
Nonsense. With Hamas gone and the associated violence, israel no longer has a choice. Western sentiment has shifted notably in the last decade. Hamas' continued existence is the only excuse they have left.
I don't think that shift is anywhere near as big as you claim. Where is the pressure on Israel to negotiate with the PA in the West Bank? Cause Hamas aren't in charge there and **** all has happened.
If Hamas is involved, the PA will not settle because they will not settle the West Bank without Gaza. If Hamas is removed from the equation as any meaningful contributor, the PA can negotiate on behalf of both the West Bank and Gaza.
Except that any settlement reached would be meaningless since the PA have no authority in Gaza.
I only bring up the words on the page since a few people are so persistent in quoting the words of Hamas' leader to show the contradiction. Hamas has not demonstrated in any meaningful way that it is willing to work toward a two-state solution.
In the last 10 years what has Israel done to show it is willing?
The problem is you seem to believe that Israel wants peace and that there will be pressure on them to make peace. You are completely wrong on both counts.
-
You have repeatedly argued that it was Hamas' illegal attacks on civilians which started this conflict. Will you agree that it was Israel's illegal arrests of Hamas members that started it?
I have argued that Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel started the airstrikes and resulting ground incursion into Gaza - which they did. I had not previously commented on what started the whole affair, aside from alluding to the kidnap and murder of the Israeli teens, which are traceable as the first spark in the recent conflict. The Israeli incursion into the West bank came after.
As I've repeatedly said, there is a difference between giving them concessions and talking to them. Israel is committed to the whole "We don't talk to terrorists" ideal which you also seem to be committed to. This ideal very rarely works. In the cases I mentioned previously (South Africa and Northern Ireland) peace was eventually secured precisely because people talked. Now I'm sure you're going to make some claim about how the situation there was different, fine. Find me a situation which was the same where ignoring the terrorists did result in a lasting peace.
The UK did not negotiate with and give concessions to the IRA while they were actively in the middle of a civilian bombing campaign.
I had originally started and intended to do a line-by-line response to the rest of your post, but I honestly I don't think it serves the discussion of the point I keep droning on about (and simply perpetuates the devolving spiral into detailed nitpicking). I'd rather focus on the steps to the endgame, which is what I've been doing all along:
I acknowledge that Israel is not "the good guys." Similarly, the residents of Gaza and the West Bank aren't "the bad guys." Neither is the PA. Israel has done a lot of really ****ty things to the residents of Gaza and the West Bank which the world at large has largely let them get away with for a multitude of reasons, both pragmatic and political. It's not right, it's not acceptable, and a shift in the West in particular is going to be necessary to force a long term peace agreement into place. Unless both sides leave the negotiating table with equal grumbling, there is going to be a winner and a loser, and that means that peace is not going to last.
It doesn't actually matter who started it. It doesn't actually matter how many civilians, legitimate troops (both sides), or terrorists die in this conflict. It doesn't matter that three Israeli teens were kidnapped and murdered; it doesn't matter that one Palestinian kid had the same done to him; it doesn't matter that Israel walked into the West Bank (yet again), that Hamas shoots at Israel, that Israel shoots back, or that either side breaks ceasefires. It's a callous thing to say, but it's ultimately true. I happen to think that there is enough blame to go around for everyone, but that Hamas is truly a bunch of evil individuals in a league all to their own in this conflict. But it doesn't matter.
What DOES matter, and matters immensely, is the long-term calculus. If Israel negotiates with people who are actively and *intentionally* shooting at civilians while those attacks are still going on or as a direct consequence of them stopping the peace process is ****ed. Long-term. Possibly irreparably. The conflict over the region of Palestine (of which Israel is a part) has been going on for as long as we have recorded human history, and that is because we have only rarely managed to have the three primary religions in the region all led by people who want to have peace and share power. And finally - finally! - we almost have the conditions to make it lasting. Like Northern Ireland, the majority populations on both sides (or, more accurately in this case, all three sides) are prepared to accept a power-sharing arrangement to ensure a lasting peace, if only their governments would catch up.
Except now, we have two more radical elements with agendas who benefit from a lack of peace. In Israel, we have the governing party, who are happy to use security excuses to further expand their territorial borders and dominate the region. In Gaza (and to a lesser extent, the West Bank), we have Hamas, who still vow to destroy the state of Israel. One is a democratic government that must at least pay heed to international law or risk alienating the entire world. One is a terrorist organization who simply doesn't care about anything but their agenda. The first becomes unacceptable and unsupportable if the second vanishes.
If Israel allows concessions to be a condition of a halt on attacks on civilians, the peace process loses. Hamas' goal is to establish a theocratic, non-democratic state over the entirety of the former Palestinian Mandate. If they gain concessions as a direct result of attacks on civilians, they will not stop. That goal will continue, and they will have the means to do it. It'll be slow and incremental, but everytime Hamas wants further concessions, the shots will start and the rockets will take flight until they gain them... until Israel says 'no more' and the real killing starts.
Terrorist attacks on civilians cannot be the basis for a peace settlement. It's far worse in the long run. That doesn't preclude a settlement in the West Bank, but Abbas is historically unwilling to settle the West Bank negotiations independently of Gaza's participation. If he's changed his tune (which I'm not aware of), then Israel certainly does deserve condemnation for its failure to seek an agreement there.
-
Looks like Israel have rented themselves out some ad space on Youtube.
I just got this as my ad on a completely unrelated Youtube video:
It's on this channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6zZ6ROUfiMqSRrsMQamlhA
"Israel's Foreign Affairs Min."
-
Good thing I've got an adblocker, or I'd be all for Hamas now. :) I loathe YT ads. I suppose it's a decent idea, though. The governments are starting to catch up on how powerful internet is.
-
The UK did not negotiate with and give concessions to the IRA while they were actively in the middle of a civilian bombing campaign.
Absolute complete and utter bull****. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_campaign_1969-1997#The_ceasefires)
In August 1994, the Provisional IRA announced a "complete cessation of military operations". This was the culmination of several years of negotiations between the Republican leadership, led by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, various figures in the local political parties, the Irish government and British government. It was informed by the view that neither the UK forces, nor the IRA could win the conflict and that greater progress towards Republican objectives might be achieved by negotiation.
While many Provisional IRA volunteers were reportedly unhappy with the end of armed struggle short of the achievement of a united Ireland, the peace strategy has since resulted in substantial electoral and political gains for Sinn Féin, the movement's political wing. It may now be argued that the Sinn Féin political party has eclipsed the Provisional IRA as the most important part of the republican movement. The ceasefire of 1994 therefore, while not a definitive end to Provisional IRA operations, marked the effective end of its full scale armed campaign.
The Provisional IRA called off its 1994 ceasefire on 9 February 1996 because of its dissatisfaction with the state of negotiations. They signaled the end of the ceasefire by detonating a truck bomb at Canary Wharf in London, which caused the deaths of two civilians and massive damage to property. In the summer of 1996, another truck bomb devastated Manchester city centre. However, the Provisional IRA campaign after the ceasefire was suspended during this period and never reached the intensity of previous years. In total, the IRA killed 2 British soldiers, 2 RUC officers, 2 British civilians, and 1 Garda in 1996–1997 according to the CAIN project.[152] They resumed their ceasefire on 19 July 1997.[153]
These Provisional IRA military activities of 1996–97 were widely believed to have been used to gain leverage in negotiations with the British government during the period.[154] Whereas in 1994–95, the British Conservative Party government had refused to enter public talks with Sinn Féin until the IRA had given up its weapons, the Labour Party government in power by 1997 was prepared to include Sinn Féin in peace talks before IRA decommissioning. This precondition was officially dropped in June 1997.[149]
Another widespread interpretation of the temporary breakdown in the first IRA ceasefire is that the leadership of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness tolerated a limited return to violence in order to avoid a split between hardliners and moderates in the IRA Army Council. Nevertheless, they emphasized in every public statement since the fall of 1996 the need for a second truce. Once they had won over or removed the militarists from the Council, they re-instated the ceasefire.[8]
The IRA first offered a ceasefire in 1994. This was after they had been engaged in secret talks with the British government (who publicly denied it) and only after the major concession of the Downing Street Declaration had been made. You claim no concessions but Britain basically announced that they would be willing to give Northern Ireland back.
The IRA returned to violence when they became dissatisfied with the talks and in particular the demand of the British government that they must demilitarise. Which led to the British government eventually resuming the talks after giving in to the IRA demand. Given that prior to both ceasefires the British government was in secret talks with the Sinn Fein I really don't see how you can possibly claim that there were no negotiations or concessions granted before the talks that eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement.
Peace in Northern Ireland happened literally because the British Government were willing to talk to a terrorist organisation. The exact same thing happened in South Africa between the government and the ANC. It needs to happen in Palestine before there will be peace.
What DOES matter, and matters immensely, is the long-term calculus. If Israel negotiates with people who are actively and *intentionally* shooting at civilians while those attacks are still going on or as a direct consequence of them stopping the peace process is ****ed. Long-term. Possibly irreparably. The conflict over the region of Palestine (of which Israel is a part) has been going on for as long as we have recorded human history, and that is because we have only rarely managed to have the three primary religions in the region all led by people who want to have peace and share power. And finally - finally! - we almost have the conditions to make it lasting. Like Northern Ireland, the majority populations on both sides (or, more accurately in this case, all three sides) are prepared to accept a power-sharing arrangement to ensure a lasting peace, if only their governments would catch up.
Except now, we have two more radical elements with agendas who benefit from a lack of peace. In Israel, we have the governing party, who are happy to use security excuses to further expand their territorial borders and dominate the region. In Gaza (and to a lesser extent, the West Bank), we have Hamas, who still vow to destroy the state of Israel. One is a democratic government that must at least pay heed to international law or risk alienating the entire world. One is a terrorist organization who simply doesn't care about anything but their agenda. The first becomes unacceptable and unsupportable if the second vanishes.
I don't disagree with anything you have said up until this point.
If Israel allows concessions to be a condition of a halt on attacks on civilians, the peace process loses. Hamas' goal is to establish a theocratic, non-democratic state over the entirety of the former Palestinian Mandate. If they gain concessions as a direct result of attacks on civilians, they will not stop. That goal will continue, and they will have the means to do it. It'll be slow and incremental, but everytime Hamas wants further concessions, the shots will start and the rockets will take flight until they gain them... until Israel says 'no more' and the real killing starts.
Terrorist attacks on civilians cannot be the basis for a peace settlement. It's far worse in the long run. That doesn't preclude a settlement in the West Bank, but Abbas is historically unwilling to settle the West Bank negotiations independently of Gaza's participation. If he's changed his tune (which I'm not aware of), then Israel certainly does deserve condemnation for its failure to seek an agreement there.
Here's where I disagree with you completely. As I've pointed out above, with the IRA that simply did not happen. Even a return to their mainland bombing campaign didn't disrupt the long term peace process. While I fully agree that Hamas are a long term threat to peace in the region I happen to be of the opinion that any short term peace which leads to a drastic improvement in lives of the people in Gaza will very quickly lead to them being marginalised by their own people in the same way that the Real IRA very quickly found that no one was the slightest bit interested in their agenda.
-
Pardon me?
The UK did not give a single solitary concession to the IRA while the bombing was active. Nothing in that Wikipedia article refutes that. The UK was talking to Adams and McGuinness, both of whom were political figures and legitimate representatives of Sinn Fein and not actually active members of the pIRA at the time. Moreover, Sinn Fein was included in peace talks following the IRA bombings of 96-97, but the pIRA was not. This is analogous to Israel negotiating with the PA in the West Bank while Hamas is still active. The UK government's negotiations with the Republican movement occurred with Sinn Fein, which renounced violence, and not the IRA. Now, there have always been links between the two and its an open question if Adams and McGuinness were indeed directing members of the pIRA itself, but the negotiations always occurred with the political movement, not the bombers, and its an important distinction. Moreover, the UK's public negotiations of record all took place after the IRA's ceasefires were established, both in 1994 and 1997.
As a further matter of interest, the Downing Street Declaration was not an announcement that "Britain would give the north back" (an odd statement, considering it was never actually taken in the first place, but moving on), but rather an announcement that the people of Northern Ireland had a right to self-determination. And a precondition of it and negotiations was the cessation of violence. It directly prompted the pIRA ceasefire of 1994.
On a broader level, the Irish conflict isn't comparable to Hamas and Israel in that the pIRA's goal was always the 'liberation' of Northern Ireland from the UK and its 're'unification with the Republic in the south. They never sought the destruction of the UK itself. Hamas does.
Here's where I disagree with you completely. As I've pointed out above, with the IRA that simply did not happen. Even a return to their mainland bombing campaign didn't disrupt the long term peace process. While I fully agree that Hamas are a long term threat to peace in the region I happen to be of the opinion that any short term peace which leads to a drastic improvement in lives of the people in Gaza will very quickly lead to them being marginalised by their own people in the same way that the Real IRA very quickly found that no one was the slightest bit interested in their agenda.
The IRA was already effectively marginalized by 1996-7. They were not in 1994; it was UK recognition of self-determination rights coupled with the principle that they would not negotiate with the people actively committing violence that led to the IRA's unilateral 1994 ceasefire. As mentioned above, there are good reasons not to expect the same sort of magnanimous behaviour from Hamas. The IRA was genuinely interested in a goal with an end to hostilities and was willing to accept a lasting solution that still allowed their adversary to continue to exist. Hamas is not.
The ideal pragmatic scenario is that the PA abandons Hamas to its fate and negotiates with Israel without them. If the PA declared a willingness to do so, public pressure would force Israel to the negotiating table for real talks. As it stands, Abbas' refusal to negotiate without Gaza's inclusion due to his likelihood of being tossed from office for it is the biggest hampering issue toward a realistic solution, short of the evisceration of Hamas in a military campaign, for which international support is virtually nil at this point.
-
The UK did not give a single solitary concession to the IRA while the bombing was active. Nothing in that Wikipedia article refutes that.
You missed the whole bit on secret talks then. You missed that the British Government conceded on the precondition of disarmament before talks could happen only when the IRA went back to violence.
And remember it's you who brought up concessions. I've repeatedly said they aren't necessary but talks are.
Now, there have always been links between the two and its an open question if Adams and McGuinness were indeed directing members of the pIRA itself, but the negotiations always occurred with the political movement, not the bombers, and its an important distinction.
I don't think it's anywhere near as important as you believe. If either were known to have been directing members of the pIRA they would immediately have been arrested. You're basically splitting hairs in a desperate attempt to claim that Hamas are different. Political party only or actively armed terrorists doesn't really matter in this case.
Moreover, the UK's public negotiations of record all took place after the IRA's ceasefires were established, both in 1994 and 1997.
Stressed the important word there.
As a further matter of interest, the Downing Street Declaration was not an announcement that "Britain would give the north back" (an odd statement, considering it was never actually taken in the first place, but moving on), but rather an announcement that the people of Northern Ireland had a right to self-determination.
If you're going to nit-pick you need to read more carefully. I said willing, not will. i.e they were willing to accept self-determination. If you don't believe that talks with the IRA led to that rather spectacular change in tack, that's up to you.
On a broader level, the Irish conflict isn't comparable to Hamas and Israel in that the pIRA's goal was always the 'liberation' of Northern Ireland from the UK and its 're'unification with the Republic in the south. They never sought the destruction of the UK itself. Hamas does.
By this logic you can never have peace between Taiwan and China since the Taiwanese constitution still considers their government to be the legitimate rulers of the mainland. If you really believe that they would stick to their guns over that I think we can end this conversation right now.
While not exactly the same for all we know once a temporary truce is in place and both countries have peace, even Hamas might be willing to soften their stance in order to avoid another war and simply leave things much the same as Taiwan has (i.e a paper declaration that they should rule Israel but a de facto acceptance of Israel. It's absolutely certain they've made statements to that effect.
Even if that isn't the case, after a few years of peace it's very likely that Hamas will find that the will to start trouble isn't there. This is exactly why I brought up the Real IRA.
The IRA was already effectively marginalized by 1996-7. They were not in 1994; it was UK recognition of self-determination rights coupled with the principle that they would not negotiate with the people actively committing violence that led to the IRA's unilateral 1994 ceasefire.
And why do you think that was, if not for pretty much exactly the reason I stated above?
More importantly though, given that there is historical precedent for it resulting in peace, why the **** aren't we hearing a ridiculous amount of pressure on Israel to make a declaration similar to the Downing Street Declaration? You know, if they're the civilised, democratic, non-crazy bastards? Once that happens, you could more legitimately claim that the ball in in Hamas' court to give up violence. Because then, they would already know what the results of talks might be, and that Israel couldn't go back on their word.
-
You missed the whole bit on secret talks then. You missed that the British Government conceded on the precondition of disarmament before talks could happen only when the IRA went back to violence.
Stressed the important word there.
If you're going to nit-pick you need to read more carefully. I said willing, not will. i.e they were willing to accept self-determination. If you don't believe that talks with the IRA led to that rather spectacular change in tack, that's up to you.
I believe in evidence, not conjecture. And I'm not seeing any evidence of these claims in any of the information you've linked or any of the publicly-available record. And once again, the negotiations took place with legitimate political representatives, not the organization doing the bombing.
I don't think it's anywhere near as important as you believe. If either were known to have been directing members of the pIRA they would immediately have been arrested. You're basically splitting hairs in a desperate attempt to claim that Hamas are different. Political party only or actively armed terrorists doesn't really matter in this case.
It's a massively important distinction. The IRA was expressly marginalized and excluded because the talks were conducted between legitimate political representatives, not a government negotiating with the bombers. It makes all the difference. The IRA never got concessions out of the UK government - Sinn Fein, who conducted their business peacefully, did.
And remember it's you who brought up concessions. I've repeatedly said they aren't necessary but talks are.
Is that the sticking point? Because I don't oppose talks between Israel and Hamas to establish a ceasefire. I oppose any attempt to make Israel give concessions to Hamas while the attacks are ongoing or as a direct result of them (a reward of sorts). And if you read the latest list of demands out of Hamas, it's not a roadmap to peace, but a list of concessions it expects from Israel in exchange for them not shooting at them. That's called extortion.
By this logic you can never have peace between Taiwan and China since the Taiwanese constitution still considers their government to be the legitimate rulers of the mainland. If you really believe that they would stick to their guns over that I think we can end this conversation right now.
Say what now? No, by my earlier logic Taiwan and China are not comparable to the Irish conflict. That says nothing about the prospects for peace, merely that they're aren't comparable. Similarly, the conflict surrounding Israel is only tangentially comparable to the irish conflict, which also says nothing about the prospects for peace there either.
While not exactly the same for all we know once a temporary truce is in place and both countries have peace, even Hamas might be willing to soften their stance in order to avoid another war and simply leave things much the same as Taiwan has (i.e a paper declaration that they should rule Israel but a de facto acceptance of Israel. It's absolutely certain they've made statements to that effect.
Even if that isn't the case, after a few years of peace it's very likely that Hamas will find that the will to start trouble isn't there. This is exactly why I brought up the Real IRA.
1. I don't oppose a ceasefire or temporary truce. I oppose Hamas' conditions for a ceasefire as concessions from Israel.
2. Despite unilateral withdrawal by Israel in 2005 and no incursions into Gaza except in retaliation for Hamas' activities since it actively took and illegally held power in 2007, Hamas has mounted or supported significant attacks into Israel on at least seven separate occasions between 2007 and today. Hamas stills commands (at last estimate) 37% support, despite their utter failure as a government. The will to start trouble broadly in Gaza is already gone - the problem is that Hamas controls the government and can start trouble whenever it likes, will of the people or not. Which harkens back to what I've been saying about Hamas all along - they aren't going away because they already hold power in Gaza by sheer force of arms alone.
And why do you think that was, if not for pretty much exactly the reason I stated above?
More importantly though, given that there is historical precedent for it resulting in peace, why the **** aren't we hearing a ridiculous amount of pressure on Israel to make a declaration similar to the Downing Street Declaration? You know, if they're the civilised, democratic, non-crazy bastards? Once that happens, you could more legitimately claim that the ball in in Hamas' court to give up violence. Because then, they would already know what the results of talks might be, and that Israel couldn't go back on their word.
Parts of Israel - significant ones - already have public support for a two-state solution if violence is renounced. That said, the Israeli government could go a long way toward peace by making a similar announcement as well. But like I've been saying, nowhere am I absolving Israel of its lack of action or bad policies; I'm merely pointing out that Hamas, and concessions to it, are a long-term destructive force again the entire peace process. I've been pretty damn consistent here - I support Israel's right to strike into Gaza to stop and retaliate for the rocket attacks, I support a refusal to premise a ceasefire and peace agreement to halt the hostilities on concessions to Hamas (which are what the most recent offers have demanded), I support a two-state solution, and I support the legitimate grievances of the people of Gaza and the West Bank when it comes to Israel failing to negotiate the conditions of a two-state solution in good faith with the parties who are not currently going the extortion route. I wish Israel and the PA would start the process in earnest by negotiating a two-state solution based in the West Bank, but neither side is showing a willingness to do that. I would also support Israel and the PA if they jointly decided to eradicate Hamas.
-
PA will never decide to "erradicate Hamas". That would be seen as treason by the common palestinian people.
-
PA will never decide to "erradicate Hamas". That would be seen as treason by the common palestinian people.
Indeed. As I mentioned before, Abbas and the PA won't even negotiate without Hamas, which is one of the many reasons talks aren't ongoing.
-
I believe in evidence, not conjecture. And I'm not seeing any evidence of these claims in any of the information you've linked or any of the publicly-available record.
The article I linked to flat out says that the British Government were in talks with the IRA before both ceasefires.
And once again, the negotiations took place with legitimate political representatives, not the organization doing the bombing.
And I flat out refuse to accept that distinction as being in any way meaningful given that Hamas is both.
It's a massively important distinction. The IRA was expressly marginalized and excluded because the talks were conducted between legitimate political representatives, not a government negotiating with the bombers. It makes all the difference. The IRA never got concessions out of the UK government - Sinn Fein, who conducted their business peacefully, did.
I think this comment is what makes it pointless trying to continue this conversation. If you really believe this distinction is so important that you can't make analogies with Northern Ireland, I give up.
-
Given that the Israeli military also seems to do what amounts to war crimes, why not classify it as a terrorist organization as well?
-
What Israel is doing is flat out evil but it would be a dilution of what the term terrorist means to classify them as that.
That said, on the subject of war crimes, has any Israeli soldier ever been convicted (or even put on trial) for such? Cause I don't recall ever hearing of a case and I find it pretty hard to imagine a military who have been involved in such a large number of conflicts and hasn't had one criminal who needed to be prosecuted.
-
That said, on the subject of war crimes, has any Israeli soldier ever been convicted (or even put on trial) for such? Cause I don't recall ever hearing of a case and I find it pretty hard to imagine a military who have been involved in such a large number of conflicts and hasn't had one criminal who needed to be prosecuted.
Here's one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/world/middleeast/04mideast.html?_r=0
-
A couple here were demoted and given a suspended sentence (it goes on their criminal record) for using a kid to open a bag they thought might contain explosives.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-soldiers-demoted-after-convicted-of-gaza-war-misconduct-1.325850
-
That's the same incident I posted, but yours is better.
-
That was from 2008, btw.
-
The article I linked to flat out says that the British Government were in talks with the IRA before both ceasefires.
No, it doesn't:
In August 1994, the Provisional IRA announced a "complete cessation of military operations". This was the culmination of several years of negotiations between the Republican leadership, led by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, various figures in the local political parties, the Irish government and British government. It was informed by the view that neither the UK forces, nor the IRA could win the conflict and that greater progress towards Republican objectives might be achieved by negotiation.
It says the British Government were in talks with the legitimate political movement and its leaders. The IRA was not included. Even in the quote concerning 1996-7, it acknowledges that the IRA bombing campaign may have been used as leverage, but Sinn Fein and the politicians were the only ones the UK negotiated with.
And I flat out refuse to accept that distinction as being in any way meaningful given that Hamas is both.
I think this comment is what makes it pointless trying to continue this conversation. If you really believe this distinction is so important that you can't make analogies with Northern Ireland, I give up.
In one sentence you make a statement that acknowledges that the situation is markedly different as Hamas fills two roles, and then you say that that distinction is not important when it comes to drawing analogies. Both of which ignore what I've been saying.
Hamas is, first and foremost, a terrorist entity bent on the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy. It was politically elected once, and has since seized power. It ceased to be a legitimate political movement the moment it took power by force, and it no longer commands the support of a majority of the citizens of Gaza (if, indeed, it ever did).
In the Irish situation, the UK government effectively marginalized and ignored the bombers, and negotiated with the political movement. They were two separate entities with two separate philosophies on resolving the conflict. In Gaza, that isn't possible - to negotiate with, and give concessions to, Hamas in order to get a ceasefire in the first place is to give in to armed extortion. That's a fundamentally different reality than what the UK faced with Ireland.
This is why Israel should not begin negotiations with Hamas until there is an unconditional ceasefire in place. Conversely, they should begin negotiations with the PA as the government of the West Bank immediately.
I agree that continuing further appears to be pointless, however, if you are unwilling to acknowledge the fundamental differences at play in the circumstances. Just the history used as justification for the IRA versus Hamas is immensely different, nevermind the political realities of the present.
-
That said, on the subject of war crimes, has any Israeli soldier ever been convicted (or even put on trial) for such? Cause I don't recall ever hearing of a case and I find it pretty hard to imagine a military who have been involved in such a large number of conflicts and hasn't had one criminal who needed to be prosecuted.
This likely has to do with the fact that the ICC is impossibly slow in investigations, brutally inefficient, and more or less incapable of compelling people to answer to war crimes allegations without an external military or police force scooping up the accused. Do you know a government both willing and capable of forcing an Israeli residing in Israel to appear in The Hague? Because I don't.
-
But if Israel is so democratic and so respects the rule of law, surely they would have prosecuted someone themselves.
Which is kinda why I was asking.
It says the British Government were in talks with the legitimate political movement and its leaders. The IRA was not included.
Only if you insist on maintaining the fiction that Sinn Fein and the IRA were separate entities. Since you are, there is little point in continuing.
-
Karajorma, that is totally besides the point. The fact that we both know Sinn Féin and IRA were really really close, if not outright the same organization sharing a different front is totally besides the point. By dealing with Sinn Féin and dismissing the IRA the UK government was making the political statement that one kind of relationship was the definite way to go and the other was not. This *is* the point. There is a farce involved here, but this farce is *absolutely central to even our daily basis social interactions*, and one that is absolutely needed if anything is to be resolved.
This is why Israel cannot deal with Hamas. It's too obvious an anti-jew terrorist organization. They cannot do it. The fact that the PA insists on having these people on the same table is inappropriate and shatters the entire conversation. The PA should publicly disavow Hamas and insist on their own political goals through proper channels, just like Sinn Féin did. It doesn't matter if they are being "hypocritical" or not about it, what matters is the expediency here.
Don't ever commit the mistake that these organizations are homogeneous even. The fact that both of those fronts existed was also a reflection of the heterogeneity of the ideas and peoples behind those movements. Certain people tried to make the case their cause would be better served by guerrilla warfare, others that it was better served by non-violent political pressure. It is debatable that one cannot exist without the other. I mean, without the terrorist expression, why bother dealing with Sinn Féin - but notice here something that should not be forgotten: this always happens in every liberation movement. Even the civil rights movement in the 60s had the really nasty black panther party and the nice and charming MLK. Without the former, the latter wouldn't have got as much political strenght.
By dealing with Sinn Féin, the government was at the same time disavowing the IRA while tacitly acknowledging the discontent about the unresolved political issues.
-
Meh, it's a polite fiction. Hamas have a name for their militant wing too. They're called the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam_Brigades
Hell, there are even quotes on that page saying that Hamas/al-Qassam organisation is comparable to Sinn Fein/pIRA.
-
-snip-
Yup, exactly this.
It's worth noting that while pretty much everyone suspects the pIRA and Sinn Fein shared at least some of their leadership (and McGuinness was definitely a Provisional before he went to jail and entered politics), no one has been able to conclusively prove it. Had they been able to, the talks with Sinn Fein likely would have collapsed as well.
Meh, it's a polite fiction. Hamas have a name for their militant wing too. They're called the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam_Brigades
Hell, there are even quotes on that page saying that Hamas/al-Qassam organisation is comparable to Sinn Fein/pIRA.
Those political scientists' quotes aren't terribly recent, seeing as Hamas itself - not just the military wing - has embraced violence in this go-round. Sinn Fein never supported the violence.
-
Saying that Hamas is comparable to the Sinn Féin is the kind of statement that really disqualifies any argument you are making here. They are not comparable. If Hamas has an even more radical wing to it, well then, what can I say but "Oh Dear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok)".
-
Like I said, I'm out. I'm sick of arguing with people who want to allow the circle of violence to continue because they want to characterise Hamas as crazy bastards who can't possibly be reasoned with. While the first part of that is pretty much true, I still refuse to accept the latter.
-
Yeah saying I or MP or whatever are allowing violence to continue is perfectly fair and reasonable on your part. Rational, even. I'm so taken aback by that piercing clarity of a statement that I'll even refrain to tell you what I really think about it, so genial it was.
-
I'm pretty sure I've been arguing for ways to end the circle of violence without providing the fuel to restart it worse than ever a short time later. Of course, I did write a lot of words recently, so maybe I slipped in a few cheers for the increasing civilian bodycount somewhere in there.
-
And I've repeatedly pointed out that an agreement without Hamas is worthless since they're the ones in charge in Gaza.
-
I'm pretty sure I've been arguing for ways to end the circle of violence without providing the fuel to restart it worse than ever a short time later. Of course, I did write a lot of words recently, so maybe I slipped in a few cheers for the increasing civilian bodycount somewhere in there.
I've yet to see a solution that doesn't stick all the onus on Hamas in a way that's nearly unachievable for them to ever do. And no, saying both sides are bad as a lampshade doesn't cover it. Asking for peace from Hamas for an extended period of time as a negotiation precondition, wherein Israel will probably still continue to screw with them and provoke matters, is asking them to entirely be the bigger man even though in all meaningful metrics of wealth, education, and suffering, political capital, etc the people in Gaza are the weaker party. Not to mention the trust aspect. Sure, disarm any ability to fight back, and then wait and trust the other side will respond appropriately even though historically they've given you no reason to trust them.
I repeat. Hamas is violent and civilian targeting is bad, but they're really not the problem here in the grand scheme of things. We were arguably, on the way to peace, and then Israel takes a crime they can't offer any proof for, and uses it as a pretext to arrest hundreds of people, many of which with political affiliations. If this were any other country, particularly if it was say, Russia instead of Israel, you'd all be calling this an obvious provocation, and probably a human rights violation just in the act itself. Accusations have been made before about them sabotaging the peace process, just up until now the evidence was more shaky so we ignored it. Are we going to continue to ignore it?
-
Feel free to read the last three pages of the thread, where I explain precisely why Israel negotiating with Hamas without an unconditional ceasefire established is bad for the long term peace accord and is far more likely to result in more deaths, not fewer. In those three pages, you will also find a number of references where I state that Israel should negotiate with the PA in the West Bank to come to a two-state solution with the non-violent party, but for the note that the PA refuses to negotiate without Hamas present.
Want to see a lasting two-state solution in our lifetimes? International pressure needs to be brought to bear on Israel to get a deal with the PA, and on the PA to negotiate without Hamas.
What some of you don't seem to get is that Hamas is not comprised of rational human beings who will go "hey, we're getting a break here, let's negotiate in good faith." Hamas is comprised of extreme ideologues who readily embrace violence who instead will say "hey, last time we shot at them we got more money for weapons and tunnels... let's try again and see what we can get this time." You don't negotiate with the guy that's actively punching you in the face in violation of the law because he doesn't like you and figures you should give him money; you give him a shove out of your space and/or punch back until you and him both decide to stop fighting, and then you try to work out your differences.
Hamas does not actually care about dead civilians in Gaza. In fact, they're happy to see dead civilians on both sides, because it keeps public observation aimed at heartwrenching photos in the news and not at the fact that the violence is being provoked, perpetuated, and encouraged by a bunch of bat**** loons whose entire goal is the suppression of all human rights among their own populace in favour of their bat**** fundamentalist worldview.
-
And look - unconditional ceasefire in place, and we're seeing progress: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ceasefire-holds-as-israelis-palestinians-continue-to-talk/article20072936/
-
Like I said, I'm out. I'm sick of arguing with people who want to allow the circle of violence to continue because they want to characterise Hamas as crazy bastards who can't possibly be reasoned with. While the first part of that is pretty much true, I still refuse to accept the latter.
:rolleyes:
Here's some quotes from my parents' newsletter (with references), since they do a great job of outlining the situation regarding "reasoning" with Hamas:
Last April, Israel stopped all peace negotiations when Abbas and the Palestinian Authority [PA] formed a 'unity government' with Hamas. When an Israeli official said that Hamas is a world-recognized "terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews," Abbas replied, "Hamas is an inseparable part of the Palestinian nation [sic]." Now what does that say about that 'nation'? ("PM: Abbas must choose between Hamas & Israel," Israel Hayom , 23 Apr. 2014)
Here are excerpts from Hamas' Charter: "Israel will exist… until Islam obliterates it" (Preamble); "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight Jews [not just Israelis or Zionists] and kill them" (Art. 7); "There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad [holy war]" (Art. 13).
...
Denis MacEoin says, "Hamas does not care a fig for Western initiatives based on secular theories of international law." Hamas only honors Islam's sharia law of jihad, which their charter says is "the only solution to the Palestinian problem." So how will a piece of paper, "made by mere men, and not by Allah, [be able] to stop them?" Only total defeat will prevent renewed hostilities in the future. ("There Must Not Be a Ceasefire," D. MacEoin, Gatestone Institute, 25 July 2014)
...
David Weinberg notes that, "Israeli terrorists are few and far between…" Yet a list of Islamic terrorists is huge and growing, as is a list of their victims. "Israeli terrorists are denounced roundly and emphatically by Israeli society, caught quickly, jailed fast." They are not seen as heroes, but Muslim "terrorists are celebrated widely by [their] society, feted by [its] leadership, sheltered… from justice, and rewarded generously."
Israeli society "expressed deep shame…and spoke out …in fierce denunciation" of the revenge-killing. But among Palestinian Muslims there was "triumphant jubilation and defiance" for the triple murder.
Weinberg ends, saying "you judge a society not by the crimes of a few," but by how "that society deals with its criminals and whom it celebrates as heroes. In such a tally, there is no moral symmetry whatsoever between Israeli and Palestinian societies." ("No moral symmetry," D. M. Weinberg, Israel Hayom Op-ed, 7 July 2014)
Oh, and lest anyone think that just because Hamas is overtly bad, the Palestinians must be "good":
Mark Silverberg, the foreign policy analyst at Ariel University's Policy Research Center, said, "The mother of…one of the accused kidnapper/murderers of the Israeli teens, told Israel's Channel 10 news: "If he did the kidnapping, I'll be proud of him until my final day. I raised my children on the knees of the [Islamic] religion… and their goal is to bring the victory of Islam"." This mindset permeates Palestinian Muslim society.
Since Oslo, Abbas and the PA "have encouraged a…culture that glorifies terror and terrorists, indoctrinates Palestinians through a culture of hatred and violence against Israel and Jews," calling them scum, and seeking "their annihilation." The Hamas Charter sees the murder of all Jews as necessary.
This message is spread through schools, the media, in mosques and in summer camps. Not only are they taught that "Jews have no right to live," they are also "encouraged to murder them…"
Almost 2,000 Israelis have been slaughtered in "terror attacks since the PA was established. Hostage taking, a recognized war crime" elsewhere, they see as a major victory, which is why many Palestinian Muslims celebrated the kidnapping and murder of the three Jewish teens.
"According to the 2003 US Senate Committee Hearing on Palestinian Education," almost 75% of the PA's children "yearn to die as martyrs. Until this culture of death-worship has been expunged …Palestinian statehood must never be granted." ("Palestinian Statehood Revisited," M. Silverberg, Arutz 7 Op-ed, 6 July 2014)
Nadav Shragai says the innocents killed in Gaza were "sentenced to death by Hamas, which turned them into human flak jackets." Their culture of death, "is not merely a theocratic-religious and ideological matter." In 2008, Hamas' Interior Minister said death for them "has become an industry…" They have "created a human shield of women, children, elderly and jihadists to confront…the Zionist enemy…"("Civilian blood, on Hamas' hands," N. Shragai, Israel Hayom Op-ed , 23 July 2104)
...
Dror Eydar said that because of devastation caused by the IDF in Gaza, Hamas TV hosted an 'expert', who reminded the Gazans, "It was not long ago you cried out: "Death for the sake of Allah is our most exalted desire" (part of the Muslim Brotherhood creed). Well, you got the death you wished for." Every Muslim mother must "nurse her children with hatred for the sons of Zion… We will plant that seed in [our children's] souls, to raise a generation that will remove them from the earth." Eydar: ""Nice, isn't it?""
Islamic doctrine teaches that martyrs are rewarded in paradise, and the Hamas charter states, "There is no compromise possible with the enemies of Allah." Believing this, they freely use their people as human shields. Yet human rights groups and the media still blame the Jews when Gazans die.
They want us "to recognize, respect, engage in dialogue, so on and so forth [with terrorists], but these are just flaccid slogans that mirror the weakness of the liberal elite that dominated the West in the 1930s. They scorn us and our blind rationalism. Contrary to the West's delusion, Israel is not alone in its battle against radical Islam. It is a war facing the entire free world." ("Culture of death," D. Eydar, Israel Hayom Op-ed, 6 Aug. 2014)
As I've been saying, this culture of hatred and death-worship must stop for there to be any meaningful advances towards a mutual peace:
M. Hassan Yousef, son of Hamas' founder, Sheikh H. Yousef, told CNN, "Hamas does not care about the lives of Palestinians… They don't care about their own lives. They consider dying for the sake of their ideology as a way of worship."
Youssef, now a Christian, sees "no way for Israel to reach any kind of compromise with Hamas, whose very charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and whose leaders" repeatedly call for "the extermination of the Jewish people." ("Son of Hamas Founder: They Consider Dying as a Form of Worship," Arutz 7 , 30 July 2014)
-
oh look sandwich thinks the only solution is to eradicate palestinian culture, what a surprise
-
oh look sandwich thinks the only solution is to eradicate palestinian culture, what a surprise
:wakka:
Yes, that's exactly what I said. "Eradicate Palestinian Culture™" - Sandwich, 15th of August, 2014.
/sarcasm (for those of you with broken sarcasm detectors)
I did not say anything of the sort. I said "this culture of hatred and death-worship must stop".
Also, Phantom Hoover, if you continue twisting people's words like that, I'll ban your ass. You've been warned.
-
So I guess those parts of the site policy about admins recusing themselves from incidents they are personally involved in doesn't apply to you, then?
-
Wasn't part of the policy when I joined, but you're right, I should recuse myself from banning you; I'll have another admin do it if you continue to twist words around. Happy now?
Back to the topic at hand: go ahead and try to defend a culture of hatred, incitement, and death-worship. I'll get my popcorn.
-
Phantom Hoover: Do yourself a significant favor right now of avoiding this conversation unless and until you have anything of actual worth or intelligence to contribute to it. This now makes for multiple posts in this subject alone that has caused a problem or been reported.
And given that Sandwich is probably the more level headed Administrators and given the absolutely appalling manner in which you decided to construct his response as being, given that he simply WARNED YOU that you would be banned if you continued isn't a problem. The only act of recusement in this circumstance that I can see that would have been required, the only conflict of interest that COULD have happened is if he had just banned you himself WITHOUT said warning.
And you know what? Forget what I said in the beginning here. You are now GETTING some time off to think things over and for this conversation to resume being civilized especially following that lovely and precisely crafted "Oh, but that'd be abuse" line you decided to take.
-
I will be the first to admit that I know very little about the history of the PA/Hamas, but I'm having a hard time understanding why the PA would form a "unity government" with Hamas. What does Hamas bring to the table that the PA wants/needs? If Palestinians want to be recognized as a legitimate nation, allying with a terrorist organization isn't exactly the best way to legitimize your cause. :confused:
-
If the PA gets cozy with Israel while Gaza suffers, they won't be in power for long. That would be like the ultimate family betrayal, made even more inexcusable because the West Bank is being actively colonized. It would literally be seen as dealing with the devil. They're in a pretty difficult position.
-
Which is why I get very annoyed with people basically telling the PA that they should take a self-destructive action in order to get a peace which won't last.
I'll say it one last time. Peace will come only if Israel offers its own version of the Downing Street Declaration first. That's the only thing that will put Hamas and the PA in a position where they can even realistically talk about negotiations with Israel without facing a massive backlash.
Everyone who expects peace to come from the Palestinian side is deluding themselves.
David Weinberg notes that, "Israeli terrorists are few and far between…" Yet a list of Islamic terrorists is huge and growing, as is a list of their victims. "Israeli terrorists are denounced roundly and emphatically by Israeli society, caught quickly, jailed fast."
Except for the ones you elected to the highest office of your country, they don't count, right?
Simple fact is that Israel doesn't need terrorists to do the job of grinding the Palestinians down. They have an army that is doing a very good job of that. You want to tell me that the army is denounced roundly for their excesses?
Where were the widespread protests against Operation Brother's Keeper? Or against this war? Or against settlements in the occupied territories?
The culture of hatred is just as prevalent on the Israeli side. This thread already has a link to an article about what happens to you if you are against the war. The Israeli side is much more civilised about what they want, not the death of all the Palestinians, just the continued grinding down of their will in order to continue the theft of their land.
If you want peace, this belief that Israel has a God-given right to the Palestinian land also needs to die.
-
Everyone who expects peace to come from the Palestinian side is deluding themselves.
Yeah pretty much. Everything the palestinians say and do is the direct opposite of wanting peace. You gotta be pretty deluded to think that peace will ever come from a culture that raises their kids to hate the jew and the Israelian state.
You also gotta be completely deluded to think that the Israeli people should protest against the army that is keeping them safe from a terrorist organization that is using their own civilians as human shields.
And offering their own version of the Downing Street Declaration will do jack**** because the palestinians have proven to be 100% completely untrustworthy in pretty much every dealing they've had with Israel.
-
Ummmm no. As I've pointed out before, Israel has proved pretty untrustworthy when dealing with the Palestinians too.
-
did they even honour the last peace agreement (the one from 2012)?
-
did they even honour the last peace agreement (the one from 2012)?
Did Hamas?
Finger-pointing gets the process nowhere. A cessation of current hostilities and a progressive negotiation from that point does make progress.