|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 01 2012 16:17 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote:
There's a difference between saying that something is right and saying that it's wrong. Everything that is not "right" is not automatically "wrong".
I do not think that it is right for the Palestinians to engage in acts of terror. However, I also don't think it's wrong for them to do so. They are in an untenable position, and it is really the only choice they have save, well, what you suggested (which I don't see as a legitimate option for reasons stated below).
Who am I to judge the morality of the actions of people trapped between two terrible alternatives? I'm not willing to judge people caught in an extreme situation for being wrong to take an extreme stand. Just as I'm not willing to judge a starving man who steals bread to feed himself. You do know this also means you cannot judge the actions of the Israeli people as such right? I hope you are not going to argue that the extremity of their actions are different, and that one can be judged while the other shouldn't.
Actually, yes. This is asymmetric warfare; the two sides are by definition not equal. As the side that's got the actual army, territory, resources, etc, they have the greatest number of viable options to pick from. Israel doesn't have to resort to terrorism against the Palestinians, and they don't. They can choose direct warfare. They can choose to add more settlements in Gaza, or not to do so.
It's a lot easier to pass moral judgement on the side that isn't backed into a corner and only given two bad options.
On December 01 2012 16:17 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote:
So the alternative is to... pick from the scraps of Israel's table? To essentially become a permanent underclass with little to any prospects for future improvement, no wealth to exploit (since their Israeli overlords got all of the decent land), no way to train the next generation to provide better lives for themselves, no real chance for anything beyond whatever the Israeli's decide to magnanimously give you in aid (which is little more than "enough to keep you from rioting and making a nuisance of yourselves")?
Given that option, one wonders why so many see terrorism as a viable alternative to essentially giving up on their future own future. </sarcasm> At least with terrorism, there's a chance things can get better.
So no, I don't see that as a viable alternative. I absolutely do not believe this. There is always a chance to rise up from the ashes. Ironically, Israel did just that. The situation might be different, but who's to say there is no chance? This should always be preferable to terrorism. Heck, if you follow Buddhist teachings, allowing oneself to perish is heaps better than terrorism.
Sure, they have a chance. Just like the Native Americans have risen up from the near-complete genocide of their people to... oh wait, they didn't. They live segregated on reservations, and the closest thing they have to an actual industry is gambling.
Israel shows exactly what you need for that: international recognition and support from nations (where would Israel's military be without the US there to sell them stuff at reasonable prices?), as well as land with viable resources on it that someone might want. A nation needs these things to succeed, and Israel's current government opposes giving any of these to the Palestinians.
So while there may be a chance, can you really say that this chance is better than the chance they take with terrorism? Which has the greatest chance of achieving something?
|
We disagree on the issue of passing moral judgement, so there's that.
I say Palestinians have a better fighting chance than Native Americans.They are steadily getting international recognition, and perhaps if they didn't resort to terrorism support would be more forthcoming, don't you think so? Terrorism wouldn't achieve anything for them in the long term, not in this case. They already have enough media recognition as it is. Israel government's efforts to oppose giving any of these to the Palestinians is being "legitimized" by Palestine extremists.
|
Why can't we all just live in peace instead of acting like children and saying: YOU STARTED IT!!!!1ONEELEVEN!! So I can now nuke your family, schools and churches/mosques/synagoges (my apologies for the bad spelling, English isn't my native language). Just leave each other at peace and wage economical war or something.
|
On December 01 2012 17:18 Martyrc wrote:
Why can't we all just live in peace instead of acting like children and saying: YOU STARTED IT!!!!1ONEELEVEN!! So I can now nuke your family, schools and churches/mosques/synagoges (my apologies for the bad spelling, English isn't my native language). Just leave each other at peace and wage economical war or something.
That's going to be worse for Palestine =_=
Economic sanctions have the ability to regress a nation's economic and social progress to a large degree, especially when your supposed Arab brothers are supplying you arms to fight their wars for them instead of actually saving your people.
|
Talks about wiping Israel off the map. Gets.... blockaded.... boohoo lol
|
On November 02 2011 01:11 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:57 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pEfVJ93Cwa8/TDjQIyH5mGI/AAAAAAAAGmk/EA9TbmokMRE/s1600/israel-palestine-map.jpg) Make sense? holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades? Because... up until 1967, although the land was previously called Palestine (by the othmanians and the British), there were no real Palestinians, or a Palestinian state. The green territory that you see on the second from the left picture, is the territory that was given to the arabs by the UN, and the white to the jews, the jews were happy with what they got, however, the arabs did not, and a day after Israel declared independance, Egypt, Syria, Lebannon and Jordan attacked Israel. And lost. And so, Israel conquered territory from all of them and got to the second from right picture, now, up to this point, there was still no Palestinian pepole or a Palestinian state. In 1967, once again, the arab states planned to attack Israel, however, this time Israel launched a preemptive counterattack, and conquered territory from all of these countries (the lands now known as the gaza strip and the west bank were owned by Egypt and Jordan, respectively), not only that, but Israel also conquered the Sinai peninsula (a territory twice as big as today's Israel), only to give it back to Egypt for a peace agreement. It is pretty much at this point that the "Palestinians" were created as a distinct group, up until than they were just arabs who lived on the territory known as Palestine. Now, this is the size of Israel: http://www.mapsofworld.com/israel/maps/israel-location-map.jpgAnd if you want to read more about Israel's history, you can do so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_WarNow, I don't think that the governmant should keep most of the territory conquered, however, we just can't risk having terrorists getting even closer to our cities.
Sounds legit to me. They attacked, they lost, your country secures land to better secure their nation. I enjoy reading all the misinformed views that come from people online.
Edit: As for withdrawing funding, I'm not familiar with the law requiring this in-depth, but I'm sure the organization can make it without the funding. They knew the consequences when they accepted the nation and they went ahead with it. You can't blame the people of the united states (or our politicians) for doing what we want to do with our own money.
|
On December 01 2012 16:54 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 16:17 fluidin wrote:On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote:
There's a difference between saying that something is right and saying that it's wrong. Everything that is not "right" is not automatically "wrong".
I do not think that it is right for the Palestinians to engage in acts of terror. However, I also don't think it's wrong for them to do so. They are in an untenable position, and it is really the only choice they have save, well, what you suggested (which I don't see as a legitimate option for reasons stated below).
Who am I to judge the morality of the actions of people trapped between two terrible alternatives? I'm not willing to judge people caught in an extreme situation for being wrong to take an extreme stand. Just as I'm not willing to judge a starving man who steals bread to feed himself. You do know this also means you cannot judge the actions of the Israeli people as such right? I hope you are not going to argue that the extremity of their actions are different, and that one can be judged while the other shouldn't. Actually, yes. This is asymmetric warfare; the two sides are by definition not equal. As the side that's got the actual army, territory, resources, etc, they have the greatest number of viable options to pick from. Israel doesn't have to resort to terrorism against the Palestinians, and they don't. They can choose direct warfare. They can choose to add more settlements in Gaza, or not to do so. It's a lot easier to pass moral judgement on the side that isn't backed into a corner and only given two bad options. Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 16:17 fluidin wrote:On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote:
So the alternative is to... pick from the scraps of Israel's table? To essentially become a permanent underclass with little to any prospects for future improvement, no wealth to exploit (since their Israeli overlords got all of the decent land), no way to train the next generation to provide better lives for themselves, no real chance for anything beyond whatever the Israeli's decide to magnanimously give you in aid (which is little more than "enough to keep you from rioting and making a nuisance of yourselves")?
Given that option, one wonders why so many see terrorism as a viable alternative to essentially giving up on their future own future. </sarcasm> At least with terrorism, there's a chance things can get better.
So no, I don't see that as a viable alternative. I absolutely do not believe this. There is always a chance to rise up from the ashes. Ironically, Israel did just that. The situation might be different, but who's to say there is no chance? This should always be preferable to terrorism. Heck, if you follow Buddhist teachings, allowing oneself to perish is heaps better than terrorism. Sure, they have a chance. Just like the Native Americans have risen up from the near-complete genocide of their people to... oh wait, they didn't. They live segregated on reservations, and the closest thing they have to an actual industry is gambling. Israel shows exactly what you need for that: international recognition and support from nations (where would Israel's military be without the US there to sell them stuff at reasonable prices?), as well as land with viable resources on it that someone might want. A nation needs these things to succeed, and Israel's current government opposes giving any of these to the Palestinians. So while there may be a chance, can you really say that this chance is better than the chance they take with terrorism? Which has the greatest chance of achieving something?
Not to slide off topic, but did you read the history of war between the two nations? It wasn't always like this. Palestine has always been the aggressor because they (along with other Arab nations) couldn't be content with the way land was distributed. They made poor decisions and they now suffer the consequences. Decisions come with consequences.
|
On December 01 2012 18:35 ClanRH.TV wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 01:11 RageBot wrote:On November 02 2011 00:57 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades? Because... up until 1967, although the land was previously called Palestine (by the othmanians and the British), there were no real Palestinians, or a Palestinian state. The green territory that you see on the second from the left picture, is the territory that was given to the arabs by the UN, and the white to the jews, the jews were happy with what they got, however, the arabs did not, and a day after Israel declared independance, Egypt, Syria, Lebannon and Jordan attacked Israel. And lost. And so, Israel conquered territory from all of them and got to the second from right picture, now, up to this point, there was still no Palestinian pepole or a Palestinian state. In 1967, once again, the arab states planned to attack Israel, however, this time Israel launched a preemptive counterattack, and conquered territory from all of these countries (the lands now known as the gaza strip and the west bank were owned by Egypt and Jordan, respectively), not only that, but Israel also conquered the Sinai peninsula (a territory twice as big as today's Israel), only to give it back to Egypt for a peace agreement. It is pretty much at this point that the "Palestinians" were created as a distinct group, up until than they were just arabs who lived on the territory known as Palestine. Now, this is the size of Israel: http://www.mapsofworld.com/israel/maps/israel-location-map.jpgAnd if you want to read more about Israel's history, you can do so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_WarNow, I don't think that the governmant should keep most of the territory conquered, however, we just can't risk having terrorists getting even closer to our cities. Sounds legit to me. They attacked, they lost, your country secures land to better secure their nation. I enjoy reading all the misinformed views that come from people online. Edit: As for withdrawing funding, I'm not familiar with the law requiring this in-depth, but I'm sure the organization can make it without the funding. They knew the consequences when they accepted the nation and they went ahead with it. You can't blame the people of the united states (or our politicians) for doing what we want to do with our own money.
It is fine that you disagree, but if you are to call people misinformed you should at least provide some evidence. And if you want to read about Israels history you should probably start here:
British mandate
Zionism
EDIT: Also, how can you possibly say that Palestinians have always been the aggressor when you quote another post quoting a wiki link to the six day war?
|
On December 01 2012 04:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it. The reason what happens there happens is because both sides have legitimate grievances and there are too many human factors for a lasting peace to endure. Nobody there is Hitler, in fact most problems in the world don't involve anyone being Hitler. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation. Palestine isn't a nation. you said border fights between two nations. Palestine/Israel doesn't fit your definition.
au contraire, several countries has accepted Palestine as a Nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
|
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.
Im sorry but how is it terrorism when hamas is using guerilla tactics (because of their arsenal, believe me if they had access to the same weapons Israel have, they would use them...) but when Israeli forces are bombing waterstations, hospitals, powerplants etc its "just" Warfare??? HOW does this make any sense whatsoever?
|
On December 01 2012 18:41 ClanRH.TV wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 16:54 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 16:17 fluidin wrote:On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote:
There's a difference between saying that something is right and saying that it's wrong. Everything that is not "right" is not automatically "wrong".
I do not think that it is right for the Palestinians to engage in acts of terror. However, I also don't think it's wrong for them to do so. They are in an untenable position, and it is really the only choice they have save, well, what you suggested (which I don't see as a legitimate option for reasons stated below).
Who am I to judge the morality of the actions of people trapped between two terrible alternatives? I'm not willing to judge people caught in an extreme situation for being wrong to take an extreme stand. Just as I'm not willing to judge a starving man who steals bread to feed himself. You do know this also means you cannot judge the actions of the Israeli people as such right? I hope you are not going to argue that the extremity of their actions are different, and that one can be judged while the other shouldn't. Actually, yes. This is asymmetric warfare; the two sides are by definition not equal. As the side that's got the actual army, territory, resources, etc, they have the greatest number of viable options to pick from. Israel doesn't have to resort to terrorism against the Palestinians, and they don't. They can choose direct warfare. They can choose to add more settlements in Gaza, or not to do so. It's a lot easier to pass moral judgement on the side that isn't backed into a corner and only given two bad options. On December 01 2012 16:17 fluidin wrote:On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote:
So the alternative is to... pick from the scraps of Israel's table? To essentially become a permanent underclass with little to any prospects for future improvement, no wealth to exploit (since their Israeli overlords got all of the decent land), no way to train the next generation to provide better lives for themselves, no real chance for anything beyond whatever the Israeli's decide to magnanimously give you in aid (which is little more than "enough to keep you from rioting and making a nuisance of yourselves")?
Given that option, one wonders why so many see terrorism as a viable alternative to essentially giving up on their future own future. </sarcasm> At least with terrorism, there's a chance things can get better.
So no, I don't see that as a viable alternative. I absolutely do not believe this. There is always a chance to rise up from the ashes. Ironically, Israel did just that. The situation might be different, but who's to say there is no chance? This should always be preferable to terrorism. Heck, if you follow Buddhist teachings, allowing oneself to perish is heaps better than terrorism. Sure, they have a chance. Just like the Native Americans have risen up from the near-complete genocide of their people to... oh wait, they didn't. They live segregated on reservations, and the closest thing they have to an actual industry is gambling. Israel shows exactly what you need for that: international recognition and support from nations (where would Israel's military be without the US there to sell them stuff at reasonable prices?), as well as land with viable resources on it that someone might want. A nation needs these things to succeed, and Israel's current government opposes giving any of these to the Palestinians. So while there may be a chance, can you really say that this chance is better than the chance they take with terrorism? Which has the greatest chance of achieving something? Not to slide off topic, but did you read the history of war between the two nations? It wasn't always like this. Palestine has always been the aggressor because they (along with other Arab nations) couldn't be content with the way land was distributed. They made poor decisions and they now suffer the consequences. Decisions come with consequences.
Just a little question here...
How content would you be if someone that you completely disagreed with just decided to partition land in such a way that you really have no control over?
That will piss people off. This goes quadruple for a set of people that historically dislike each other to a great extent. The Palestine land petition was a cluster fuck and really what started everything.
|
On December 01 2012 19:10 NEEDZMOAR 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. Im sorry but how is it terrorism when hamas is using guerilla tactics (because of their arsenal, believe me if they had access to the same weapons Israel have, they would use them...) but when Israeli forces are bombing waterstations, hospitals, powerplants etc its "just" Warfare??? HOW does this make any sense whatsoever?
I've come to realize that very few of the arguments that pro-Israel people use are humane. They mostly use "who is stronger should rule" -arguments. And also that Israel has no options (which I have never seen a good argument for, they only state this).Aaaand thats about it. It doesnt make sense to us because we don't share that ideology, thats why we just scream at each other without result. They think facism is good we don't so its not really much we can do. (Terrorism = a way to justify war/expansion when in reality Terrorism = War)
|
On December 01 2012 19:21 Mefano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 19:10 NEEDZMOAR 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. Im sorry but how is it terrorism when hamas is using guerilla tactics (because of their arsenal, believe me if they had access to the same weapons Israel have, they would use them...) but when Israeli forces are bombing waterstations, hospitals, powerplants etc its "just" Warfare??? HOW does this make any sense whatsoever? I've come to realize that very few of the arguments that pro-Israel people use are humane. They mostly use "who is stronger should rule" -arguments. And also that Israel has no options (which I have never seen a good argument for, they only state this).Aaaand thats about it. It doesnt make sense to us because we don't share that ideology, thats why we just scream at each other without result. They think facism is good we don't so its not really much we can do. (Terrorism = a way to justify war/expansion when in reality Terrorism = War)
You are obviously correct, but I want to hear the pro-israel man say it himself, I want to hear him actually admit that hes in fact supporting facism.
by the by, the french resistance during WW2 were referred to as terrorists by the german nazis.
Its a horrible conflict and I hope I will live to see peace in this part of the world
|
What's funny is that people are saying the Hamas is "hiding itself in crowded area" so they are guilty, but it's just not knowing the Hamas. They have no army like Israel, the Hamas is a group of people who build school, help children, do you think they got elected for their plan to "wipe out Israel out of the planet" ? Only part of the Hamas is their "armed force".
Israel is messing with the numbers, for exemple they consider that all police force in Gaza are part of Hamas' army which is just not true. If you are part of the police and hide yourself with your wife during bombing attacks, then you're a Hamas resistant hiding himself in crowded area...
Now everybody is going to talk about semantics, like the Hamas is responsible for staying in school they build, for hiding in the hospital they run... Sure they are only "coward" and "terrorists". And when women deliberatly decide to shield Hamas soldiers to help them get out of a facility, like in November 2006, who's the one to blame ? The women ? The Hamas ?
I'll give you another exemple of how all this is wrong, during the 2008-2009 "war", Israel counted the rockets like they always did, the result was that only 22% of the rockets were coming from Hamas. Some from fatah, some from other factions, and basically 30% coming from the unknown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
So basically, you just can't believe the IDF numbers or the Israelis arguments because they don't even know who are attacking them or who they are attacking 30% of the time.
Now when I point the fact that the IDF strategically targetted civilians for psychological warfare, and that people such as Chomsky quote Israelis high officials who claim to do that, then no it's not true, they do it by mystake. They have been convicted more than the Hamas for war crimes, but no one cares it's about semantics anyway.
KwarK and the others are basically saying : both IDF and Hamas did some wrong, but the Hamas are more wrong. The Hamas is not an army, not trained, their equipment is outdated, they are not all in the Hamas for belligerant reasons (even if we could say they are all linked by a deep fear and hate of the Israeli army, but who blame them ?) they kill 20x less people than the Israelis, but somehow, somehow they are more wrong.
|
On December 01 2012 19:55 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 19:21 Mefano wrote:On December 01 2012 19:10 NEEDZMOAR 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. Im sorry but how is it terrorism when hamas is using guerilla tactics (because of their arsenal, believe me if they had access to the same weapons Israel have, they would use them...) but when Israeli forces are bombing waterstations, hospitals, powerplants etc its "just" Warfare??? HOW does this make any sense whatsoever? I've come to realize that very few of the arguments that pro-Israel people use are humane. They mostly use "who is stronger should rule" -arguments. And also that Israel has no options (which I have never seen a good argument for, they only state this).Aaaand thats about it. It doesnt make sense to us because we don't share that ideology, thats why we just scream at each other without result. They think facism is good we don't so its not really much we can do. (Terrorism = a way to justify war/expansion when in reality Terrorism = War) You are obviously correct, but I want to hear the pro-israel man say it himself, I want to hear him actually admit that hes in fact supporting facism. by the by, the french resistance during WW2 were referred to as terrorists by the german nazis. Its a horrible conflict and I hope I will live to see peace in this part of the world
Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist by Reagan and Thatcher.
Yes, it is reassuring that no one in this thread has been able to formulate any kind of viable arguments for the Israeli side in this thread (maybe with the exception of Kwark) that aren't extremely reductive or that rely on an absurd historic narrative.
|
I don't even see many pro-Israel people posting, it's mostly those that tend towards neutrality and you pro-Palestinian posters.
|
It's really sad how the whole discussion in the media is controlled by the extreme ends. Are all Palestinians really terrorists and all Israeli's religious fanatic land-grabbers ? As many people in these thread already said, sometimes we have to get over the past and look to the future (although I cannot imagine how hard it has to be for both sides to get over the past).
There are lots of reasonable voices on both sides. Abbas has tried to stop the violence (and from what I understood largely managed to do this in the West-Bank), so why is everybody so focused on Hamas ? Why doesn't Israel try to make peace with Abbas (West-Bank), let him develop the West-Bank and show Hamas what it can win by abandoning violence ?
I am afraid this won't happen with the current Netanyahu government :-(. Ehud Olmert actually welcomed the new status of the Palestinians in the UN, and saw it as a step forward in the peace process.
Is there any chance the more peace-oriented political parties in Israel will win the upcoming election ?
|
On December 01 2012 22:08 Op wrote:
Why doesn't Israel try to make peace with Abbas (West-Bank), let him develop the West-Bank and show Hamas what it can win by abandoning violence ?
I am afraid this won't happen with the current Netanyahu government :-(. Ehud Olmert actually welcomed the new status of the Palestinians in the UN, and saw it as a step forward in the peace process.
Is there any chance the more peace-oriented political parties in Israel will win the upcoming election ?
Abbas wants Israel to go back to 1967 borders, and Israel says no (at least under the Netanyahu gov). I don't know enough about the political climate inside Israel to know if there is a political party in Israel that is willing to go back to 1967 border or their chances of coming into power.
|
On December 01 2012 19:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it. The reason what happens there happens is because both sides have legitimate grievances and there are too many human factors for a lasting peace to endure. Nobody there is Hitler, in fact most problems in the world don't involve anyone being Hitler. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation. Palestine isn't a nation. you said border fights between two nations. Palestine/Israel doesn't fit your definition. au contraire, several countries has accepted Palestine as a Nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
ah, yes, well... mine didn't.
|
On December 01 2012 09:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 09:49 KwarK wrote:
I took his post as some kind of vague implication that because Hamas are Arabs it's easy for us stupid bigots to believe that they are terrorists because it fits our simple narrative of turban wearing, suicide bombing Jihadists whereas he has access to a much higher truth. It's a complete nonsense. The silent majority does not believe that all terrorists are Arabs, at least not in my country. I'm not sure about the silent majority, but unfortunately the vocal majority in my country believes this hook, line, and sinker.
no they don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
