|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
|
On December 01 2012 05:11 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:04 Art.FeeL wrote:
Can anyone explain why Israel and USA (and some other nations too) opposed the status upgrade Palestine got. Their words are usually that of ''resolving the conflict through negotiations'' and this UN thing doesn't really oppose it. They also say that they are for a Palestinian state so shouldn't they vote for? Anyone with more insight? Rejecting nations were: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, and United States of America. Their general interest is most likely lessening the power of the Palestinians' negotiating position, so a step towards UN recognition is not really what they're wanting to see.
Great! I love this so much. Having a government licking US balls.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...? Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight. What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower. Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
Yea, why would you demonize someone for employing suicide bombers targeting civilian areas such as schools, buses and markets.... Silly me..
|
|
|
On December 01 2012 05:31 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:27 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 01 2012 05:23 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:
[quote]
Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair. lol fair? You speak of fair? Where the fairness in 5 Arab nations invading a group of settlers with the intention of killing every single Jewish man, woman and child? Of fucking course they were arming themselves, but they weren't doing so with the intention of conquest. The lengths you go through to paint Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and manipulative is disgusting. You may be confusing cause and effect. What if the 5 Arab nations attacked as a response to Jews arming themselves? Again, if you'd care to actually read a history book you'd know that your statement is ridiculous. Why would 5 established nations need to invade a group of settlers with intentions of "Driving the Jews into the sea." I don't even know why I bother with TL general sometimes. Peace.
Someone before be posted about Irgun and others. Now were they too formed as a response? It is quite ridiculous that every action Israel takes is read as 'defensive'. Yeah, I guess it is necessary for the homeland security to not let fishermen outside the few km radius. It's like I punch you in the face and you return and then I say I have to defend myself.
|
United States43938 Posts
On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...? Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight. What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower. Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
|
On December 01 2012 05:31 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:27 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 01 2012 05:23 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:
[quote]
Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair. lol fair? You speak of fair? Where the fairness in 5 Arab nations invading a group of settlers with the intention of killing every single Jewish man, woman and child? Of fucking course they were arming themselves, but they weren't doing so with the intention of conquest. The lengths you go through to paint Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and manipulative is disgusting. You may be confusing cause and effect. What if the 5 Arab nations attacked as a response to Jews arming themselves? Again, if you'd care to actually read a history book you'd know that your statement is ridiculous. Why would 5 established nations need to invade a group of settlers with intentions of "Driving the Jews into the sea." I don't even know why I bother with TL general sometimes. Peace.
No you need to read history book for christ sake, it's not a "group of settlers" like some hyppies going in a foreign country to make flower camps.
Althought it's true that the 5 arab nation didn't attack as a response to Jews arming themselves. They attacked mainly because of the exodus of palestinians, and the flow of people going at their frontier and pressing on the public opinion, pushing leaders to war.
|
On December 01 2012 05:04 Art.FeeL wrote:
Can anyone explain why Israel and USA (and some other nations too) opposed the status upgrade Palestine got. Their words are usually that of ''resolving the conflict through negotiations'' and this UN thing doesn't really oppose it. They also say that they are for a Palestinian state so shouldn't they vote for? Anyone with more insight?
Israel has been a very good ally to several western nations, its kinda back stabby to go off and undermine them by accepting palestine. Furthermore theres nothing to be gained for those countries to accept palestine, it would simply just be another hostile country to them from the middle east.
Most countries in the middle east are terrible at playing the world politics game. They seem simply ignorant to the size of the world beyond them. A lot of people will say Israel gets a lot of support from being a democracy this is mostly hogwash. In reality other governments care very little about the leadership structure of a country, the question is how well do you play with others.
Take Saudi Arabia, this is a country where they are still ruled by a monarchy a rather unpopular monarchy too I might add. They still run around and cut off peoples hands and do public headings and other things the rest of the world moved on from hundreds of years ago. Yet they are strongly backed by most of the world governments. They cooperate, they don't openly support enemies of big players. They simply operate in the market and do their own thing. Thus they're a relatively wealthy and industrialized nation.
Hell on an extreme level we've all been told about all the horrible things the taliban did to women and people under their rule, but guess what, no one would have bothered them if they had even just acted like they were trying to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, instead of going full retard and taking his side.
Israel does the same thing, other governments like people who are willing to play the game. If you don't play the game, you're going to end up a shit hole plain and simple its pretty much been like that for thousands of years.
|
On December 01 2012 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:31 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:27 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 01 2012 05:23 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:
[quote]
Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair. lol fair? You speak of fair? Where the fairness in 5 Arab nations invading a group of settlers with the intention of killing every single Jewish man, woman and child? Of fucking course they were arming themselves, but they weren't doing so with the intention of conquest. The lengths you go through to paint Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and manipulative is disgusting. You may be confusing cause and effect. What if the 5 Arab nations attacked as a response to Jews arming themselves? Again, if you'd care to actually read a history book you'd know that your statement is ridiculous. Why would 5 established nations need to invade a group of settlers with intentions of "Driving the Jews into the sea." I don't even know why I bother with TL general sometimes. Peace. No you need to read history book for christ sake, it's not a "group of settlers" like some hyppies going in a foreign country to make flower camps. Althought it's true that the 5 arab nation didn't attack as a response to Jews arming themselves. They attacked mainly because of the exodus of palestinians, and the flow of people going at their frontier and pressing on the public opinion, pushing leaders to war.
The exodus of Palestinians was largely in response to the impending invasion...................
|
On December 01 2012 05:34 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...? Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight. What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower. Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game? Yea, why would you demonize someone for employing suicide bombers targeting civilian areas such as schools, buses and markets.... Silly me..
When you back an angry dog into a corner, you shouldn't be surprised when it bites you in the balls.
Yes, those acts are horrific and terrible. But what are the alternatives? The Palestinians have two choices: 1) do whatever Israel wants 2) asymmetric warfare. Hamas chose the latter. That's a terrible thing, but the alternative is surrender.
Terrorism is horrific and wrong. But so is warfare in general. So I don't see the reason to hate Hamas more for their kind of warfare than Israel's warfare and policies towards the Palestinians. They target civilians too, just not with guns but economics.
|
|
|
On December 01 2012 05:43 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:34 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...? Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight. What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower. Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game? Yea, why would you demonize someone for employing suicide bombers targeting civilian areas such as schools, buses and markets.... Silly me.. When you back an angry dog into a corner, you shouldn't be surprised when it bites you in the balls. Yes, those acts are horrific and terrible. But what are the alternatives? The Palestinians have two choices: 1) do whatever Israel wants 2) asymmetric warfare. Hamas chose the latter. That's a terrible thing, but the alternative is surrender. Terrorism is horrific and wrong. But so is warfare in general. So I don't see the reason to hate Hamas more for their kind of warfare than Israel's warfare and policies towards the Palestinians. They target civilians too, just not with guns but economics.
You really can't think of a single alternative to using suicide bombers? Damn man... you must not be putting much thought into this lol
|
On December 01 2012 05:41 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:31 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:27 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 01 2012 05:23 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:
[quote]
Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair. lol fair? You speak of fair? Where the fairness in 5 Arab nations invading a group of settlers with the intention of killing every single Jewish man, woman and child? Of fucking course they were arming themselves, but they weren't doing so with the intention of conquest. The lengths you go through to paint Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and manipulative is disgusting. You may be confusing cause and effect. What if the 5 Arab nations attacked as a response to Jews arming themselves? Again, if you'd care to actually read a history book you'd know that your statement is ridiculous. Why would 5 established nations need to invade a group of settlers with intentions of "Driving the Jews into the sea." I don't even know why I bother with TL general sometimes. Peace. No you need to read history book for christ sake, it's not a "group of settlers" like some hyppies going in a foreign country to make flower camps. Althought it's true that the 5 arab nation didn't attack as a response to Jews arming themselves. They attacked mainly because of the exodus of palestinians, and the flow of people going at their frontier and pressing on the public opinion, pushing leaders to war. The exodus of Palestinians was largely in response to the impending invasion...................
And what book did you read ? You mean Palestinian fled because they feared the arab nation coming to help them ? LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus
In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. In the words of Erskine Childers: "Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war," while "The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists."
A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.
The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":
Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
Various local factors and general fear of the future.
Basically, they left because they were scarred. There is a discussion (mainly Benny Morris vs Finkelstein) wheither this exodus was designed by the Israelis forces or was the result of the atrocities of the wars made by Israelis.
|
Yea, why would you demonize someone for employing suicide bombers targeting civilian areas such as schools, buses and markets.... Silly me..
Nobody is perfect... It's sad that suicide bombings even occur, let alone target non-military assets.
But he's right. Demonizing is what we do to our enemies.
When we impose economic sanctions on other nations in order to get their leaders to behave the way we want them to, what actually happens is the people suffer intensely. They get less education, less healthcare, less productive work, less food. Children drop out of school and go to work, Infant mortality rates skyrocket due to bad healthcare and literacy rates plummet due to bad/no education.
I have always found it so ironic that our media and culture can pick out one distasteful element of a culture/society/conflict and then we can say to ourselves "this is a terrible terrible abhorrent thing; wholly bad", but in reality the variety and intensity of our own atrocities, be they domestic or international, make the west out to be a great painted jackass, whose hypocrisies might never be equaled.
|
United States43938 Posts
On December 01 2012 05:41 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:04 Art.FeeL wrote:
Can anyone explain why Israel and USA (and some other nations too) opposed the status upgrade Palestine got. Their words are usually that of ''resolving the conflict through negotiations'' and this UN thing doesn't really oppose it. They also say that they are for a Palestinian state so shouldn't they vote for? Anyone with more insight? Israel has been a very good ally to several western nations, its kinda back stabby to go off and undermine them by accepting palestine. Furthermore theres nothing to be gained for those countries to accept palestine, it would simply just be another hostile country to them from the middle east. Most countries in the middle east are terrible at playing the world politics game. They seem simply ignorant to the size of the world beyond them. A lot of people will say Israel gets a lot of support from being a democracy this is mostly hogwash. In reality other governments care very little about the leadership structure of a country, the question is how well do you play with others. Take Saudi Arabia, this is a country where they are still ruled by a monarchy a rather unpopular monarchy too I might add. They still run around and cut off peoples hands and do public headings and other things the rest of the world moved on from hundreds of years ago. Yet they are strongly backed by most of the world governments. They cooperate, they don't openly support enemies of big players. They simply operate in the market and do their own thing. Thus they're a relatively wealthy and industrialized nation. Israel does the same thing, other governments like people who are willing to play the game. If you don't play the game, you're going to end up a shit hole plain and simple its pretty much been like that for thousands of years.
You massively mischaracterise the situation in Saudi Arabia. The monarchy is unpopular precisely because it is much more moderate and western than the people would like it to be. The irony of the dictatorships left around the world by the imperial system in the past is that their leaders are generally a product of either western education or of a military trained in a western system. The Saudi elites co-operate not simply because of their self interests but also by inclination, their beliefs are not those of their people. It's one of the issues that will need to be faced in the world following the Arab Spring, that democracy is only as good as the electorate. The public beheadings and so forth are more because of the people than the monarchy, we don't tolerate the repressive monarchy in spite of them, we tolerate the repression done by the monarchy because of them.
|
Can someone explain to me why the United States doesn't want Palestine to be recognized by the UN?
It seems so double standards and oppressive to me, even as an American.
|
United States43938 Posts
On December 01 2012 05:43 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:34 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...? Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight. What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower. Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game? Yea, why would you demonize someone for employing suicide bombers targeting civilian areas such as schools, buses and markets.... Silly me.. When you back an angry dog into a corner, you shouldn't be surprised when it bites you in the balls. Yes, those acts are horrific and terrible. But what are the alternatives? The Palestinians have two choices: 1) do whatever Israel wants 2) asymmetric warfare. Hamas chose the latter. That's a terrible thing, but the alternative is surrender. Terrorism is horrific and wrong. But so is warfare in general. So I don't see the reason to hate Hamas more for their kind of warfare than Israel's warfare and policies towards the Palestinians. They target civilians too, just not with guns but economics.
Asymmetric warfare does not necessitate deliberate attacks on civilians. That's something they choose to do.
|
On December 01 2012 05:49 neoghaleon55 wrote:
Can someone explain to me why the United States doesn't want Palestine to be recognized by the UN?
It seems so double standards and oppressive to me, even as an American.
Mostly it has to do with the fact that the Palestinian Authority now has the ability to (possibly) take Israel to the International Criminal Court.
If they do that, it's a goddamn PR disaster.
|
On December 01 2012 05:45 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:43 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 05:34 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...? Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight. What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower. Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game? Yea, why would you demonize someone for employing suicide bombers targeting civilian areas such as schools, buses and markets.... Silly me.. When you back an angry dog into a corner, you shouldn't be surprised when it bites you in the balls. Yes, those acts are horrific and terrible. But what are the alternatives? The Palestinians have two choices: 1) do whatever Israel wants 2) asymmetric warfare. Hamas chose the latter. That's a terrible thing, but the alternative is surrender. Terrorism is horrific and wrong. But so is warfare in general. So I don't see the reason to hate Hamas more for their kind of warfare than Israel's warfare and policies towards the Palestinians. They target civilians too, just not with guns but economics. You really can't think of a single alternative to using suicide bombers? Damn man... you must not be putting much thought into this lol
See, even suicide bombers make sense to me from the standpoint of utter desperation. But once Hamas began using their OWN people as shields, knowing full well that Israel would continue to fight back, that is when the ideological line has been crossed. I don't care how angry that dog in the corner is, only abject hate can motivate someone to put their own kin before the firing line to make a political point.
|
On December 01 2012 05:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:45 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:43 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 05:34 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...? Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight. What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower. Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game? Yea, why would you demonize someone for employing suicide bombers targeting civilian areas such as schools, buses and markets.... Silly me.. When you back an angry dog into a corner, you shouldn't be surprised when it bites you in the balls. Yes, those acts are horrific and terrible. But what are the alternatives? The Palestinians have two choices: 1) do whatever Israel wants 2) asymmetric warfare. Hamas chose the latter. That's a terrible thing, but the alternative is surrender. Terrorism is horrific and wrong. But so is warfare in general. So I don't see the reason to hate Hamas more for their kind of warfare than Israel's warfare and policies towards the Palestinians. They target civilians too, just not with guns but economics. You really can't think of a single alternative to using suicide bombers? Damn man... you must not be putting much thought into this lol See, even suicide bombers make sense to me from the standpoint of utter desperation. But once Hamas began using their OWN people as shields, knowing full well that Israel would continue to fight back, that is when the ideological line has been crossed. I don't care how angry that dog in the corner is, only abject hate can motivate someone to put their own kin before the firing line to make a political point.
There as been no proof that the Hamas use their own people as shield aside from the claim of the IDF. There was a UN commission on the matter that showed that (goldstone report for exemple).
On the other hand, it was proved that some Israelis soldiers used palestinians as shield and they got convicted for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Human_shields_allegations
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
