|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
Sadly that move just makes the PA weaker and non-state activist entities like Hamas stronger.
|
On December 01 2012 05:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:41 abominare wrote: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.
Oh no I fully get the situation there, the essence of my argument is that its only important how the government interacts with the world stage. The Saudi ruling class understands whats going on, they play the game, and they play it well even if their citizens don't appreciate it. Hell if they (edit: the citizens) had it their way, we actually would have let Saddam roll through them. (Ironically he thought he had our permission for his southern excursions in empire making because we stood silent when he asked if he could since we were already good friends with him) Arab Spring is really just a buzz word that gets thrown about for the we love democracy types. Governments really don't get a flip what you are as long as you play the world politics game like everyone else.
I'll put it this way, its totally ok for your citizens to run out and say death to america, as long as the guy in charge is willing to play ball with the americans. Its when the guy in charge starts saying it that you have problems.
|
Every time the whole middle east situation takes a step in the right direction they take two steps back shortly after.
Very soon now, someone is going to do something very stupid.
|
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.
It's not really if you know the issue. This move by Abbas is self-serving in ways; having the PA becoming an "observing state" makes him look better in elections (I think it just happened or is going to happen), but I believe it gives more power to Hamas than to the PA because the US and a few other nations could further restrict aid because of this, making him actually appear weaker and give national activist movements more credibility.
From what I understand, the US doesn't want this because it is side-stepping any Israel-PA negotiations by trying to achieve legitimacy without diplomacy with Israel, which has been US's stand forever. Basically, the US wants the PA to talk with Israel to settle this. If the PA gets statehood (it keeps trying but the efforts fall short because the UN knows the UN Security Council will veto any successful vote) they no longer have to talk with Israel; they are granted the rights that legitimate states have which are quite different from the rights granted to observer entities and observer states, and will not really result in peace.
Basically the move dodges peace talks and tries to achieve sovereignty through other ways.
@ boniface: Not entirely true, the ICC would not likely entertain any claims brought forth by the PA, and the PA knows it.
|
On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
|
On December 01 2012 05:23 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:
[quote]
I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere.
What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law."
Yeah, that's a tough one.
Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. 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.
Are you for real? The settlement of Israel in itself was conquest. It's hard to take someone seriously who considers Israel to be the victim. Both sides are to blame. Anyone who claims otherwise should just stay out of the debate.
But...although both are to blame, you can't deny these facts:
1. The israelis stole the country from the palestinians
2. The israelis have much more powerful allies, which means that:
a. they will win any military dispute.
b. they can negotiate on unfair terms.
c. Palestine have to take on desperate measures, like terrorism and shady military practices in general to somewhat stand a chance
2a is the reason why Israel have annexed most of the territory by now.
2b is the reason why peaceful negotiations have failed, because they have all been unfair towards Palestine. That's why they are trying to get into the UN, and that's why them getting into the UN is a great step for peace. The only one who is opposing Palestine getting fairer terms is Israel. If pretty much all the countries in the world, despite US pressure, sympathize with a arab muslim country that is known for terrorist operations, and at a time like this, when muslims are looked upon with suspicion, that alone says it all.
|
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
It is hard to explain what's happening down there if you have never been there. You have to take into consideration the psychological dimension too. If you see your kid being killed, it is very hard to constraint yourself by morality.So if you live under occupation and you see that talking gets you nowhere you are going to try to get your rights by force if necessary. That's how Hamas rose to power. Terrorists are freedom fighters when looked from the other side.
And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart.
By that logic IDF are also terrorists when killing reporters and civilians.
Just to clarify I was responding to KwarK.
|
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
Please stop confusing acts of terrorism with acts of revolutionaries. Their actions are to be condemned because they are terrorist actions. Launching rockets at random is not an act of revolution. It is an act of terrorism. You could make the case that they were revolutionaries if they were attacking israeli military, police, or other government targets. They aren't.
You say that they have no other choice. I disagree.
1. They can accept the fact that Israel is their neighbor. Palestinians live, Israelis live. This has a minimal chance of increasing their sovereignty.
2. They can blow up random shit in Israel. Palestinians and Israelis die. This has no chance of increasing their sovereignty, but it does help fuel their propaganda machine.
3. They can wage war on Israel. Palestinians die. This has no chance of increasing their sovereignty.
|
United States42824 Posts
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
|
On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
|
On December 01 2012 06:30 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? It is hard to explain what's happening down there if you have never been there. You have to take into consideration the psychological dimension too. If you see your kid being killed, it is very hard to constraint yourself by morality.So if you live under occupation and you see that talking gets you nowhere you are going to try to get your rights by force if necessary. That's how Hamas rose to power. Terrorists are freedom fighters when looked from the other side. Show nested quote +And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. By that logic IDF are also terrorists when killing reporters and civilians. Just to clarify I was responding to KwarK.
This is incorrect. Terrorists are not freedom fighters when viewed from the other side. Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of who views them as what. Indiscriminate killings (which includes any attack without a military objective) for the purpose of gaining attention are terrorism. When you say that a terrorist is a freedom fighter, that is called propaganda.
The IDF are terrorists if they kill indiscriminately. They generally don't just bomb places for the pure fun of it.
|
On December 01 2012 06:49 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? Please stop confusing acts of terrorism with acts of revolutionaries. Their actions are to be condemned because they are terrorist actions. Launching rockets at random is not an act of revolution. It is an act of terrorism. You could make the case that they were revolutionaries if they were attacking israeli military, police, or other government targets. They aren't. You say that they have no other choice. I disagree. 1. They can accept the fact that Israel is their neighbor. Palestinians live, Israelis live. This has a minimal chance of increasing their sovereignty. 2. They can blow up random shit in Israel. Palestinians and Israelis die. This has no chance of increasing their sovereignty, but it does help fuel their propaganda machine. 3. They can wage war on Israel. Palestinians die. This has no chance of increasing their sovereignty.
That can be said about IDF(Israel) too, even when they kill innocent ppl, that isn't regarded as an act of terrorism (I wonder why?)
You might say that's a clash between David and Goliath, tho, David doesn't have a slingshot, what else he can do ?
as an answer.
1,2&3 are moot, it's in fact Israel who's playing the bad neighbor role, getting his courtyard bigger and bigger over the imposed limits (not speaking about now but in the past)
|
On December 01 2012 07:16 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:30 Art.FeeL wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? It is hard to explain what's happening down there if you have never been there. You have to take into consideration the psychological dimension too. If you see your kid being killed, it is very hard to constraint yourself by morality.So if you live under occupation and you see that talking gets you nowhere you are going to try to get your rights by force if necessary. That's how Hamas rose to power. Terrorists are freedom fighters when looked from the other side. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. By that logic IDF are also terrorists when killing reporters and civilians. Just to clarify I was responding to KwarK. This is incorrect. Terrorists are not freedom fighters when viewed from the other side. Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of who views them as what. Indiscriminate killings (which includes any attack without a military objective) for the purpose of gaining attention are terrorism. When you say that a terrorist is a freedom fighter, that is called propaganda. The IDF are terrorists if they kill indiscriminately. They generally don't just bomb places for the pure fun of it.
My bad. I wanted to say that the ones the enemy dub as terrorists can be freedom fighter when looked from the other side.
I guess Hamas bombs ''places for the pure fun of it'', coz you know, that's they don't have anything more interesting to do and the general IDF way of thinking is: ''Look there is a Hamas fighter, we have to kill him despite killing innocent civilians too''. And my line still stands. By killing civilians or reporters indiscriminately or under a disguise is the same thing.
|
On December 01 2012 07:06 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists. I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II
Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
|
On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
You are so wise that even your wisdom blinded you  . Stop seeing it like "a drone can kill a nexus" , yes, there are many military targets available, but, are they able to attack them? If so, that would imply that IDF are the most stupid ppl around to let their assets vulnerable which is not the case. Also why the hell are they keeping civilians in areas that are "hot" ? Is that a "meat shield" tactic/reason justify their belligerency ? Nor Palestine neither Israel are saints in this story.
|
On December 01 2012 07:24 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 07:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists. I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer. We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_IINot a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
|
On December 01 2012 07:06 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists. I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
If put in the same position, yes, most people would probably not care.
Does it matter? Fuck no.
If I was abused by my mother, I would probably be blowing heads off of people in the Appalachian Mountains with a sniper rifle right about now. Doesn't make it any more right, though.
Going after civilian targets over military targets makes you A: an asshole and B: a terrorist (pretty much by definition). I don't care what happened to you when you were a kid, or how brutal the war's been, or what your history is between you and the enemy, once you actively seek out civilian targets over military ones, you don't have a single ounce of morals left in you, or your cause. The best anyone can ever say of you is that the other side is just as bad (which it is NOT, in this case. Israel has been prioritizing military targets).
Sure, Israel has done a LOT of bad things, and so has Hamas, but Hamas' actions are unjustifiable.
By the way, you know those rockets Hamas was launching at civilian targets? A fair amount were being shot from places like neighborhoods. They were using their own people as a shield.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
people don't seem to understand that, just because you are wired to react to provocations by fighting, and feeling justified to fight, that doesn't mean it's actually justified, or that it is a good idea.
|
United States42824 Posts
On December 01 2012 07:28 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 07:24 Jormundr wrote:On December 01 2012 07:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists. I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer. We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_IINot a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not. Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one. What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
|
On December 01 2012 07:32 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 07:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK 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? 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. Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ? I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists. I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer. If put in the same position, yes, most people would probably not care. Does it matter? Fuck no.If I was abused by my mother, I would probably be blowing heads off of people in the Appalachian Mountains with a sniper rifle right about now. Doesn't make it any more right, though. Going after civilian targets over military targets makes you A: an asshole and B: a terrorist (pretty much by definition). I don't care what happened to you when you were a kid, or how brutal the war's been, or what your history is between you and the enemy, once you actively seek out civilian targets over military ones, you don't have a single ounce of morals left in you, or your cause. The best anyone can ever say of you is that the other side is just as bad (which it is NOT, in this case. Israel has been prioritizing military targets). Sure, Israel has done a LOT of bad things, and so has Hamas, but Hamas' actions are unjustifiable. By the way, you know those rockets Hamas was launching at civilian targets? A fair amount were being shot from places like neighborhoods. They were using their own people as a shield.
That's funny because, according to Chomsky, the deliberated strategy of some Israelis generals (and he quote them) was to "kill as many civilian as they can".
And when you see the result of the UN commision such as the goldstone report, there are way more critics on Israel's behavior than on the palestinian side. I guess having bomb that actually kill people makes it easier to kill civilians, especially when the war zone is one of the highest density zone of the world with almost 50% of kids between 0 and 14 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
