|
Norway28701 Posts
the international community has been consistently moving in Palestine's favor over the past decade, because people find Israel's behavior abhorrent. In Europe, Germany has been staunchly pro-Israel, which is fairly understandable because of their sensitive history. But there's generally a divide between populations and governments here, governments are much less willing to condemn Israel than the various populations are.
Personally I think we need to recognize that even outside their military operations, Israel is no better - if anything worse - than South Africa, and South Africa only abandoned apartheid after wide ranging international boycott.
|
On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 22:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives. The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution. First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population. But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber? Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton: "Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him." I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind. My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively. It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes.
No, being occupied and having settlements constructed on the remaining patch of land that you're allotted to is not normal, even if it got worse later.
|
On August 04 2014 23:31 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 22:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives. The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution. First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population. But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber? Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton: "Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him." I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind. My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively. It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. No, being occupied and having settlements constructed on the remaining patch of land that you're allotted to is not normal, even if it got worse later.
So basically if Israel exists, the land is occupied? Because that ship has sailed.
|
On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 22:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives. The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution. First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population. But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber? Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton: "Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him." I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind. My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively. It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes.
If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal".
|
Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:20 Big J wrote:On August 04 2014 23:16 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:15 Big J wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". So you consider everybody in the world to be an enemy of Palestine and on the same page demand that they should treat them as friends? I consider most dominant country to be more or less uninterested with palestine and deeply linked with Israel, both from an historical standpoint and from an economical standpoint. Palestine is a nonstate, no (or almost no) country care about it - unlike public opinion. Much like south africa before the apartheid actually : the US was backing them, most country didn't care, but the public opinion deeply cared. I think the protests against the war and Israel we have in countries like Germany proves you wrong. indicates the opposite. Edit: Sorry, shouldn't use that saying.  You understand the difference between public opinion and the opinion of the state right ? Most people were not okay with apartheid, even in the US, but the US president backed them up until the end.
Funny thing with the apartheit example:
South Africa got isolated. They had to suffer from all sorts of UN-Sanctions. There was international pressure on SA to abbandon the system. And ultimately they gave in.
So yeah, if you want to give a great example on how international politics cared about some ethnic group in some far-from-the-West country, you gave one.
|
On August 04 2014 23:39 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:20 Big J wrote:On August 04 2014 23:16 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:15 Big J wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:
[quote]
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying?
Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". So you consider everybody in the world to be an enemy of Palestine and on the same page demand that they should treat them as friends? I consider most dominant country to be more or less uninterested with palestine and deeply linked with Israel, both from an historical standpoint and from an economical standpoint. Palestine is a nonstate, no (or almost no) country care about it - unlike public opinion. Much like south africa before the apartheid actually : the US was backing them, most country didn't care, but the public opinion deeply cared. I think the protests against the war and Israel we have in countries like Germany proves you wrong. indicates the opposite. Edit: Sorry, shouldn't use that saying. You understand the difference between public opinion and the opinion of the state right ? Most people were not okay with apartheid, even in the US, but the US president backed them up until the end. Funny thing with the apartheit example: South Africa got isolated. They had to suffer from all sorts of UN-Sanctions. There was international pressure on SA to abbandon the system. And ultimately they gave in. So yeah, if you want to give a great example on how international politics cared about some ethnic group in some far-from-the-West country, you gave one.
This is exactly the same situation : everybody vote against Israeli in the UN, but the UN has no power. Exactly like back then, only the US, Israel, and some other small country (micronesia, marshal island, trinidad and tobago I think) vote against Israel.
Aside from the UN, every country recognize Israel's "right" to defend itself - aside from now the south american countries who just changed their approach towards Israel, and while most countries (even the US) condemn the settlement, they don't do anything against it, no sanction nothing. So yes, the international community does not care (I never said they were the ennemies of Palestine btw).
Now the public opinion forced the state to change their approach for South Africa, with boycotts and so on (same boycotts are happening in regards to Israel with the BDS) and maybe it will happen for Palestine.
|
On August 04 2014 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 22:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives. The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution. First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population. But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber? Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton: "Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him." I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind. My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively. It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal".
Thats 9 years ago. I'm talking the 80s and 70s. There were eras when peace was possible and both sides co-existed on some level(with problems of course). But people forgot those times and just think that the current way things are is how they always have been.
|
On August 04 2014 23:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:
[quote]
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying?
Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 22:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives. The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution. First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population. But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber? Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton: "Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him." I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind. My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively. It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal". Thats 9 years ago. I'm talking the 80s and 70s. There were eras when peace was possible and both sides co-existed on some level(with problems of course). But people forgot those times and just think that the current way things are is how they always have been.
1967. Israel fights the Six-Day War against several Arab armies, emerging victorious and in control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights (June).
The Israeli government extends the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem 70 square kilometers incorporating Jordanian east Jerusalem, the Old City, and 28 outlying Arab villages. At 126 square kilometers, it is the largest city in Israel.
The Israeli military establishment — under Defense Minister Moshe Dayan — takes over authority in the occupied Arab territories, beginning what some in Israel call the "enlightened occupation" (July).
The Khartoum Summit of the Arab League declares that there will be no Arab recognition, negotiations, or peace with Israel, often referred to as "The Three No's" (September).
UN Resolution 242 establishes the "land for peace" formula, which serves as the basis for negotiations between Israel and her neighbors since the late 1970s. (November).
1968. The settler movement, calling itself Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), is founded on Passover in a hotel in occupied Hebron (April). Through an agreement with the government, the group later establishes the settlement of Kiryat Arba on an abandoned army base east of Hebron.
Within a year of the 1967 War, 14 settlements are established in the occupied territories, mostly in the Golan but also in northern Sinai, the Jordan valley, and Gush Etzion, to the south and southeast of Jerusalem, in the West Bank.
1968-1970. The undeclared War of Attrition starts with Egyptian attacks on Israel in an attempt to recapture the Sinai. Many Israelis had thought that the Arabs were so crushingly defeated in 1967 that they would actively seek peace; this war dented that optimism.
1975. The government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin grants a special 5% tax break to settlers. The rate increases to 7% under PM Menachem Begin in 1978.
1976. Prime Minister Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres, leading a politically weakened Labor Party following the Yom Kippur War, allow the settlement project to continue.
1977. The Labor Party is upset in general elections by Menachem Begin's Likud Party, which stands openly committed to the settler ideology of Greater Israel (May).
1981. The Israeli parliament passes the Golan Law, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights, officially annexing it to the State of Israel (December).
1987. The first Palestinian uprising, or intifada, begins in Gaza and spreads to the West Bank, lasting five years The event marks the first time Palestinians in the occupied territories become significantly involved in the movement against Israeli occupation (December).
1988. PLO leader Yasser Arafat condemns all forms of terrorism and recognizes the state of Israel within pre- 1967-borders. Israel continues to refuse negotiations with the PLO, but the United States opens a dialogue with the group.
1991. The Madrid Peace Conference commences under the auspices of the US and the USSR, marking the first time that Israel and its Arab neighbors (with the exception of Egypt) engage in face-to-face negotiations. The Palestinians are represented in a joint delegation from Jordan. It is later revealed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir intended to drag the negotiations out for as long as 10 years, with no real intention of achieving a compromise.
94,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Settlements, occupation, still the same.
http://www.fmep.org/resources/reference/timeline.html
|
On August 04 2014 23:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:45 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:
[quote]
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 22:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote:
Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives. The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution. First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population. But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber? Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton: "Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him." I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind. My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively. It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal". Thats 9 years ago. I'm talking the 80s and 70s. There were eras when peace was possible and both sides co-existed on some level(with problems of course). But people forgot those times and just think that the current way things are is how they always have been. Show nested quote +1967. Israel fights the Six-Day War against several Arab armies, emerging victorious and in control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights (June).
The Israeli government extends the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem 70 square kilometers incorporating Jordanian east Jerusalem, the Old City, and 28 outlying Arab villages. At 126 square kilometers, it is the largest city in Israel.
The Israeli military establishment — under Defense Minister Moshe Dayan — takes over authority in the occupied Arab territories, beginning what some in Israel call the "enlightened occupation" (July).
The Khartoum Summit of the Arab League declares that there will be no Arab recognition, negotiations, or peace with Israel, often referred to as "The Three No's" (September).
UN Resolution 242 establishes the "land for peace" formula, which serves as the basis for negotiations between Israel and her neighbors since the late 1970s. (November).
1968. The settler movement, calling itself Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), is founded on Passover in a hotel in occupied Hebron (April). Through an agreement with the government, the group later establishes the settlement of Kiryat Arba on an abandoned army base east of Hebron.
Within a year of the 1967 War, 14 settlements are established in the occupied territories, mostly in the Golan but also in northern Sinai, the Jordan valley, and Gush Etzion, to the south and southeast of Jerusalem, in the West Bank.
1968-1970. The undeclared War of Attrition starts with Egyptian attacks on Israel in an attempt to recapture the Sinai. Many Israelis had thought that the Arabs were so crushingly defeated in 1967 that they would actively seek peace; this war dented that optimism. Show nested quote +1975. The government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin grants a special 5% tax break to settlers. The rate increases to 7% under PM Menachem Begin in 1978.
1976. Prime Minister Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres, leading a politically weakened Labor Party following the Yom Kippur War, allow the settlement project to continue.
1977. The Labor Party is upset in general elections by Menachem Begin's Likud Party, which stands openly committed to the settler ideology of Greater Israel (May).
1981. The Israeli parliament passes the Golan Law, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights, officially annexing it to the State of Israel (December). Show nested quote +1987. The first Palestinian uprising, or intifada, begins in Gaza and spreads to the West Bank, lasting five years The event marks the first time Palestinians in the occupied territories become significantly involved in the movement against Israeli occupation (December).
1988. PLO leader Yasser Arafat condemns all forms of terrorism and recognizes the state of Israel within pre- 1967-borders. Israel continues to refuse negotiations with the PLO, but the United States opens a dialogue with the group.
1991. The Madrid Peace Conference commences under the auspices of the US and the USSR, marking the first time that Israel and its Arab neighbors (with the exception of Egypt) engage in face-to-face negotiations. The Palestinians are represented in a joint delegation from Jordan. It is later revealed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir intended to drag the negotiations out for as long as 10 years, with no real intention of achieving a compromise.
94,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Settlements, occupation, still the same. http://www.fmep.org/resources/reference/timeline.html
I think this might be leaving out some key points. But I like the part about Yasser Arafat condemning terrorism, that part was pretty amusing.
|
On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:48 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:45 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 22:57 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution.
First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population.
But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber?
Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton:
"Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him." I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind. My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively. It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal". Thats 9 years ago. I'm talking the 80s and 70s. There were eras when peace was possible and both sides co-existed on some level(with problems of course). But people forgot those times and just think that the current way things are is how they always have been. 1967. Israel fights the Six-Day War against several Arab armies, emerging victorious and in control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights (June).
The Israeli government extends the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem 70 square kilometers incorporating Jordanian east Jerusalem, the Old City, and 28 outlying Arab villages. At 126 square kilometers, it is the largest city in Israel.
The Israeli military establishment — under Defense Minister Moshe Dayan — takes over authority in the occupied Arab territories, beginning what some in Israel call the "enlightened occupation" (July).
The Khartoum Summit of the Arab League declares that there will be no Arab recognition, negotiations, or peace with Israel, often referred to as "The Three No's" (September).
UN Resolution 242 establishes the "land for peace" formula, which serves as the basis for negotiations between Israel and her neighbors since the late 1970s. (November).
1968. The settler movement, calling itself Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), is founded on Passover in a hotel in occupied Hebron (April). Through an agreement with the government, the group later establishes the settlement of Kiryat Arba on an abandoned army base east of Hebron.
Within a year of the 1967 War, 14 settlements are established in the occupied territories, mostly in the Golan but also in northern Sinai, the Jordan valley, and Gush Etzion, to the south and southeast of Jerusalem, in the West Bank.
1968-1970. The undeclared War of Attrition starts with Egyptian attacks on Israel in an attempt to recapture the Sinai. Many Israelis had thought that the Arabs were so crushingly defeated in 1967 that they would actively seek peace; this war dented that optimism. 1975. The government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin grants a special 5% tax break to settlers. The rate increases to 7% under PM Menachem Begin in 1978.
1976. Prime Minister Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres, leading a politically weakened Labor Party following the Yom Kippur War, allow the settlement project to continue.
1977. The Labor Party is upset in general elections by Menachem Begin's Likud Party, which stands openly committed to the settler ideology of Greater Israel (May).
1981. The Israeli parliament passes the Golan Law, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights, officially annexing it to the State of Israel (December). 1987. The first Palestinian uprising, or intifada, begins in Gaza and spreads to the West Bank, lasting five years The event marks the first time Palestinians in the occupied territories become significantly involved in the movement against Israeli occupation (December).
1988. PLO leader Yasser Arafat condemns all forms of terrorism and recognizes the state of Israel within pre- 1967-borders. Israel continues to refuse negotiations with the PLO, but the United States opens a dialogue with the group.
1991. The Madrid Peace Conference commences under the auspices of the US and the USSR, marking the first time that Israel and its Arab neighbors (with the exception of Egypt) engage in face-to-face negotiations. The Palestinians are represented in a joint delegation from Jordan. It is later revealed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir intended to drag the negotiations out for as long as 10 years, with no real intention of achieving a compromise.
94,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Settlements, occupation, still the same. http://www.fmep.org/resources/reference/timeline.html I think this might be leaving out some key points. But I like the part about Yasser Arafat condemning terrorism, that part was pretty amusing.
Why is it amusing ?
|
On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:
It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians.
But that's the thing... one side is recognized as a Terrorist group by the US government. The other side we give fucking bombs to.
Israel as a sovereign, "civilized," democratic state that is an ally of the United States MUST be held to a higher standard than a bunch of Terrorists shooting rockets into the desert hoping to hit something on the other side of the border. The fact that we allow Israel to commit the same crimes as Hamas and not only turn a blind eye but also continue to supply them with ammunition is outright absurd.
|
Gaza makes Warsaw Ghetto looks like disney land. I guess when you have a prime minister that worships Adolf Hitler like a God (Netanyahu), you're bound to mimic some of his tactics. They say most child molesters were raped when they were younger, I guess here lies the answer as to why Israel behave like their Nazi forefathers. It wouldn't surprise me that most of their politicians has nazi blood in them, seeing as their grandmother were most likely raped during the holocaust by SS officers.
User was banned for this post.
|
On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
Since your vision relies on Palestine taking the first step I don't think it has a chance. Israel is the only party with a functioning system to actually enforce any kind of peace-deal. Therefore the responsibility for finding a solution is in the hands of Netanyahu.
I don't see Palestine as a single homogenous mass, nor do I see Hamas as such (the moderate Hamas politicians swear that the manifest is purely there for historic and internal procedure reasons. While that may be untrue, they are at least considering it as a problem of rhetorics in the short term). The problem is that the hate for Israel is so entrenched in some peoples minds that they will not accept peace. If Hamas stopped firing rockets, a new more extreme fraction would spawn to continue the rocket firing.
Most of what you envision therefore relies on a well-functioning palestinean state capable of stopping the extremists. I don't see that as even remotely possible in the current situation. The situation in Gaza is far too hectic and Palestine has no history of a working state, democratic or not.
Israel has to finish what they are doing and preferrably without more random bombings of humanitarian installations. What needs to happen is Israel supporting the operation of a state in Palestine through several years where the conditions are unstable or throw the nukes to cleanse the area of heathens.
The current action by Israel has been unproportional and unfortunately points to the nuke side of the solutions. Not surprising given the Revisionist Zionism past of the current israeli government parties, but with government responsibility you usually see a softening of ideology and some pragmatism evolve.
|
On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:48 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:45 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind. My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively. It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal". Thats 9 years ago. I'm talking the 80s and 70s. There were eras when peace was possible and both sides co-existed on some level(with problems of course). But people forgot those times and just think that the current way things are is how they always have been. 1967. Israel fights the Six-Day War against several Arab armies, emerging victorious and in control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights (June).
The Israeli government extends the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem 70 square kilometers incorporating Jordanian east Jerusalem, the Old City, and 28 outlying Arab villages. At 126 square kilometers, it is the largest city in Israel.
The Israeli military establishment — under Defense Minister Moshe Dayan — takes over authority in the occupied Arab territories, beginning what some in Israel call the "enlightened occupation" (July).
The Khartoum Summit of the Arab League declares that there will be no Arab recognition, negotiations, or peace with Israel, often referred to as "The Three No's" (September).
UN Resolution 242 establishes the "land for peace" formula, which serves as the basis for negotiations between Israel and her neighbors since the late 1970s. (November).
1968. The settler movement, calling itself Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), is founded on Passover in a hotel in occupied Hebron (April). Through an agreement with the government, the group later establishes the settlement of Kiryat Arba on an abandoned army base east of Hebron.
Within a year of the 1967 War, 14 settlements are established in the occupied territories, mostly in the Golan but also in northern Sinai, the Jordan valley, and Gush Etzion, to the south and southeast of Jerusalem, in the West Bank.
1968-1970. The undeclared War of Attrition starts with Egyptian attacks on Israel in an attempt to recapture the Sinai. Many Israelis had thought that the Arabs were so crushingly defeated in 1967 that they would actively seek peace; this war dented that optimism. 1975. The government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin grants a special 5% tax break to settlers. The rate increases to 7% under PM Menachem Begin in 1978.
1976. Prime Minister Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres, leading a politically weakened Labor Party following the Yom Kippur War, allow the settlement project to continue.
1977. The Labor Party is upset in general elections by Menachem Begin's Likud Party, which stands openly committed to the settler ideology of Greater Israel (May).
1981. The Israeli parliament passes the Golan Law, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights, officially annexing it to the State of Israel (December). 1987. The first Palestinian uprising, or intifada, begins in Gaza and spreads to the West Bank, lasting five years The event marks the first time Palestinians in the occupied territories become significantly involved in the movement against Israeli occupation (December).
1988. PLO leader Yasser Arafat condemns all forms of terrorism and recognizes the state of Israel within pre- 1967-borders. Israel continues to refuse negotiations with the PLO, but the United States opens a dialogue with the group.
1991. The Madrid Peace Conference commences under the auspices of the US and the USSR, marking the first time that Israel and its Arab neighbors (with the exception of Egypt) engage in face-to-face negotiations. The Palestinians are represented in a joint delegation from Jordan. It is later revealed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir intended to drag the negotiations out for as long as 10 years, with no real intention of achieving a compromise.
94,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Settlements, occupation, still the same. http://www.fmep.org/resources/reference/timeline.html I think this might be leaving out some key points. But I like the part about Yasser Arafat condemning terrorism, that part was pretty amusing. Why is it amusing ?
It amuses me in the same way as when I see Keith Richards in anti-drug ads. Or bill Clinton talking about marriage.
|
On August 04 2014 23:43 WhiteDog wrote:
This is exactly the same situation : everybody vote against Israeli in the UN, but the UN has no power. Exactly like back then, only the US, Israel, and some other small country (micronesia, marshal island, trinidad and tobago I think) vote against Israel.
Aside from the UN, every country recognize Israel's "right" to defend itself - aside from now the south african countries who just changed their approach towards Israel, and while most countries (even the US) condemn the settlement, they don't do anything against it, no sanction nothing. So yes, the international community does not care.
Now the public opinion forced the state to change their approach for South Africa, with boycotts and so on (same boycotts are happening in regards to Israel with the BDS) and maybe it will happen for Palestine.
I think you just simply too naive. I'll agree that the current situation is fucked up and that Israel is dealing with a monster they had a hand in creating. But thats the thing... they're now dealing with a monster. There is no turning back now because they sort of bought this on themselves. Even if Israel has thoughts of peace now, the average Paletinians mindset is fucked up so much that the only solution seems to just be crippling thier offensive capabilities every few years. It seems like they ran out of ideas and the situation now is analogous to you getting your tetanus booster every 5 years.
Israel simply just can't give in to all of Paletinians demand now because of how aggressive they've made the Palestinians.
It is now up to the Paletinians to end the conflict, not because it is fair, but because they're only bringing harm onto themselves and thier future generation.
|
On August 04 2014 23:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:48 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:45 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe.
Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail. As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime. On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively.
It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal". Thats 9 years ago. I'm talking the 80s and 70s. There were eras when peace was possible and both sides co-existed on some level(with problems of course). But people forgot those times and just think that the current way things are is how they always have been. 1967. Israel fights the Six-Day War against several Arab armies, emerging victorious and in control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights (June).
The Israeli government extends the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem 70 square kilometers incorporating Jordanian east Jerusalem, the Old City, and 28 outlying Arab villages. At 126 square kilometers, it is the largest city in Israel.
The Israeli military establishment — under Defense Minister Moshe Dayan — takes over authority in the occupied Arab territories, beginning what some in Israel call the "enlightened occupation" (July).
The Khartoum Summit of the Arab League declares that there will be no Arab recognition, negotiations, or peace with Israel, often referred to as "The Three No's" (September).
UN Resolution 242 establishes the "land for peace" formula, which serves as the basis for negotiations between Israel and her neighbors since the late 1970s. (November).
1968. The settler movement, calling itself Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), is founded on Passover in a hotel in occupied Hebron (April). Through an agreement with the government, the group later establishes the settlement of Kiryat Arba on an abandoned army base east of Hebron.
Within a year of the 1967 War, 14 settlements are established in the occupied territories, mostly in the Golan but also in northern Sinai, the Jordan valley, and Gush Etzion, to the south and southeast of Jerusalem, in the West Bank.
1968-1970. The undeclared War of Attrition starts with Egyptian attacks on Israel in an attempt to recapture the Sinai. Many Israelis had thought that the Arabs were so crushingly defeated in 1967 that they would actively seek peace; this war dented that optimism. 1975. The government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin grants a special 5% tax break to settlers. The rate increases to 7% under PM Menachem Begin in 1978.
1976. Prime Minister Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres, leading a politically weakened Labor Party following the Yom Kippur War, allow the settlement project to continue.
1977. The Labor Party is upset in general elections by Menachem Begin's Likud Party, which stands openly committed to the settler ideology of Greater Israel (May).
1981. The Israeli parliament passes the Golan Law, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights, officially annexing it to the State of Israel (December). 1987. The first Palestinian uprising, or intifada, begins in Gaza and spreads to the West Bank, lasting five years The event marks the first time Palestinians in the occupied territories become significantly involved in the movement against Israeli occupation (December).
1988. PLO leader Yasser Arafat condemns all forms of terrorism and recognizes the state of Israel within pre- 1967-borders. Israel continues to refuse negotiations with the PLO, but the United States opens a dialogue with the group.
1991. The Madrid Peace Conference commences under the auspices of the US and the USSR, marking the first time that Israel and its Arab neighbors (with the exception of Egypt) engage in face-to-face negotiations. The Palestinians are represented in a joint delegation from Jordan. It is later revealed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir intended to drag the negotiations out for as long as 10 years, with no real intention of achieving a compromise.
94,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Settlements, occupation, still the same. http://www.fmep.org/resources/reference/timeline.html I think this might be leaving out some key points. But I like the part about Yasser Arafat condemning terrorism, that part was pretty amusing. Why is it amusing ? It amuses me in the same way as when I see Keith Richards in anti-drug ads. Or bill Clinton talking about marriage.
Like when Netanyahu talk about peace right ? So funny.
On August 05 2014 00:01 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:43 WhiteDog wrote:
This is exactly the same situation : everybody vote against Israeli in the UN, but the UN has no power. Exactly like back then, only the US, Israel, and some other small country (micronesia, marshal island, trinidad and tobago I think) vote against Israel.
Aside from the UN, every country recognize Israel's "right" to defend itself - aside from now the south african countries who just changed their approach towards Israel, and while most countries (even the US) condemn the settlement, they don't do anything against it, no sanction nothing. So yes, the international community does not care.
Now the public opinion forced the state to change their approach for South Africa, with boycotts and so on (same boycotts are happening in regards to Israel with the BDS) and maybe it will happen for Palestine. I think you just simply too naive. I'll agree that the current situation is fucked up and that Israel is dealing with a monster they had a hand in creating. But thats the thing... they're now dealing with a monster. There is no turning back now because they sort of bought this on themselves. Even if Israel has thoughts of peace now, the average Paletinians mindset is fucked up so much that the only solution seems to just be crippling thier offensive capabilities every few years. It seems like they ran out of ideas and the situation now is analogous to you getting your tetanus booster every 5 years. Israel simply just can't give in to all of Paletinians demand now because of how aggressive they've made the Palestinians. It is now up to the Paletinians to end the conflict, not because it is fair, but because they're only bringing harm onto themselves and thier future generation.
Any link with my post at all ? I don't believe Israel will "give in" to Palestinian demand, I believe they will have to be forced to accept the palestinian state by the international community.
|
On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:48 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:45 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail.
As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime.
[quote]
It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal". Thats 9 years ago. I'm talking the 80s and 70s. There were eras when peace was possible and both sides co-existed on some level(with problems of course). But people forgot those times and just think that the current way things are is how they always have been. 1967. Israel fights the Six-Day War against several Arab armies, emerging victorious and in control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights (June).
The Israeli government extends the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem 70 square kilometers incorporating Jordanian east Jerusalem, the Old City, and 28 outlying Arab villages. At 126 square kilometers, it is the largest city in Israel.
The Israeli military establishment — under Defense Minister Moshe Dayan — takes over authority in the occupied Arab territories, beginning what some in Israel call the "enlightened occupation" (July).
The Khartoum Summit of the Arab League declares that there will be no Arab recognition, negotiations, or peace with Israel, often referred to as "The Three No's" (September).
UN Resolution 242 establishes the "land for peace" formula, which serves as the basis for negotiations between Israel and her neighbors since the late 1970s. (November).
1968. The settler movement, calling itself Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), is founded on Passover in a hotel in occupied Hebron (April). Through an agreement with the government, the group later establishes the settlement of Kiryat Arba on an abandoned army base east of Hebron.
Within a year of the 1967 War, 14 settlements are established in the occupied territories, mostly in the Golan but also in northern Sinai, the Jordan valley, and Gush Etzion, to the south and southeast of Jerusalem, in the West Bank.
1968-1970. The undeclared War of Attrition starts with Egyptian attacks on Israel in an attempt to recapture the Sinai. Many Israelis had thought that the Arabs were so crushingly defeated in 1967 that they would actively seek peace; this war dented that optimism. 1975. The government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin grants a special 5% tax break to settlers. The rate increases to 7% under PM Menachem Begin in 1978.
1976. Prime Minister Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres, leading a politically weakened Labor Party following the Yom Kippur War, allow the settlement project to continue.
1977. The Labor Party is upset in general elections by Menachem Begin's Likud Party, which stands openly committed to the settler ideology of Greater Israel (May).
1981. The Israeli parliament passes the Golan Law, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights, officially annexing it to the State of Israel (December). 1987. The first Palestinian uprising, or intifada, begins in Gaza and spreads to the West Bank, lasting five years The event marks the first time Palestinians in the occupied territories become significantly involved in the movement against Israeli occupation (December).
1988. PLO leader Yasser Arafat condemns all forms of terrorism and recognizes the state of Israel within pre- 1967-borders. Israel continues to refuse negotiations with the PLO, but the United States opens a dialogue with the group.
1991. The Madrid Peace Conference commences under the auspices of the US and the USSR, marking the first time that Israel and its Arab neighbors (with the exception of Egypt) engage in face-to-face negotiations. The Palestinians are represented in a joint delegation from Jordan. It is later revealed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir intended to drag the negotiations out for as long as 10 years, with no real intention of achieving a compromise.
94,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Settlements, occupation, still the same. http://www.fmep.org/resources/reference/timeline.html I think this might be leaving out some key points. But I like the part about Yasser Arafat condemning terrorism, that part was pretty amusing. Why is it amusing ? It amuses me in the same way as when I see Keith Richards in anti-drug ads. Or bill Clinton talking about marriage. Like when Netanyahu talk about peace right ? So funny. Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:01 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 04 2014 23:43 WhiteDog wrote:
This is exactly the same situation : everybody vote against Israeli in the UN, but the UN has no power. Exactly like back then, only the US, Israel, and some other small country (micronesia, marshal island, trinidad and tobago I think) vote against Israel.
Aside from the UN, every country recognize Israel's "right" to defend itself - aside from now the south african countries who just changed their approach towards Israel, and while most countries (even the US) condemn the settlement, they don't do anything against it, no sanction nothing. So yes, the international community does not care.
Now the public opinion forced the state to change their approach for South Africa, with boycotts and so on (same boycotts are happening in regards to Israel with the BDS) and maybe it will happen for Palestine. I think you just simply too naive. I'll agree that the current situation is fucked up and that Israel is dealing with a monster they had a hand in creating. But thats the thing... they're now dealing with a monster. There is no turning back now because they sort of bought this on themselves. Even if Israel has thoughts of peace now, the average Paletinians mindset is fucked up so much that the only solution seems to just be crippling thier offensive capabilities every few years. It seems like they ran out of ideas and the situation now is analogous to you getting your tetanus booster every 5 years. Israel simply just can't give in to all of Paletinians demand now because of how aggressive they've made the Palestinians. It is now up to the Paletinians to end the conflict, not because it is fair, but because they're only bringing harm onto themselves and thier future generation. Any link with my post at all ? I don't believe Israel will "give in" to Palestinian demand, I believe they will have to be forced to accept the palestinian state by the international community.
Netanyahu talking about peace is also equally comical. I don't know why you think that I side with one side or the other. This is the problem with this conflict, no one can talk about it because anyone who is mildly invested is of the theory that "if your not with us, your against us". Both sides are asses and monsters, its just that one side happens to be winning more than the other.
|
On August 04 2014 23:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:39 Big J wrote:On August 04 2014 23:20 Big J wrote:On August 04 2014 23:16 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:15 Big J wrote:On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:
[quote]
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". So you consider everybody in the world to be an enemy of Palestine and on the same page demand that they should treat them as friends? I consider most dominant country to be more or less uninterested with palestine and deeply linked with Israel, both from an historical standpoint and from an economical standpoint. Palestine is a nonstate, no (or almost no) country care about it - unlike public opinion. Much like south africa before the apartheid actually : the US was backing them, most country didn't care, but the public opinion deeply cared. I think the protests against the war and Israel we have in countries like Germany proves you wrong. indicates the opposite. Edit: Sorry, shouldn't use that saying. You understand the difference between public opinion and the opinion of the state right ? Most people were not okay with apartheid, even in the US, but the US president backed them up until the end. Funny thing with the apartheit example: South Africa got isolated. They had to suffer from all sorts of UN-Sanctions. There was international pressure on SA to abbandon the system. And ultimately they gave in. So yeah, if you want to give a great example on how international politics cared about some ethnic group in some far-from-the-West country, you gave one. This is exactly the same situation : everybody vote against Israeli in the UN, but the UN has no power. Exactly like back then, only the US, Israel, and some other small country (micronesia, marshal island, trinidad and tobago I think) vote against Israel. Aside from the UN, every country recognize Israel's "right" to defend itself - aside from now the south american countries who just changed their approach towards Israel, and while most countries (even the US) condemn the settlement, they don't do anything against it, no sanction nothing. So yes, the international community does not care (I never said they were the ennemies of Palestine btw). Now the public opinion forced the state to change their approach for South Africa, with boycotts and so on (same boycotts are happening in regards to Israel with the BDS) and maybe it will happen for Palestine.
And the international community condemns Hamas Terror and rocket attacks yet dont do anything against it. Apart from trying over and over again to make Israel and Palestine talk to each other, because that's the only way to end this conflict. I mean, sure: Sanction Israel until they stop their settlements and attacks, send an international army to Gaza and destroy every rocket they find and arrest every Terrorist. Nuke Jerusalem's cultral heritage if it is the only way to stop religions from fighting over it and causing human deaths. But I dont think either Israel nor Palestine would agree to that nor is that a goable solution.
|
On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:48 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:45 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:24 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail.
As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime.
[quote]
It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians. You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ? Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes. If you say so... The West Bank have always been occupied, Arafat lived with tanks surrounding him, Gaza was colonialized until 2005... "Normal". Thats 9 years ago. I'm talking the 80s and 70s. There were eras when peace was possible and both sides co-existed on some level(with problems of course). But people forgot those times and just think that the current way things are is how they always have been. 1967. Israel fights the Six-Day War against several Arab armies, emerging victorious and in control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights (June).
The Israeli government extends the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem 70 square kilometers incorporating Jordanian east Jerusalem, the Old City, and 28 outlying Arab villages. At 126 square kilometers, it is the largest city in Israel.
The Israeli military establishment — under Defense Minister Moshe Dayan — takes over authority in the occupied Arab territories, beginning what some in Israel call the "enlightened occupation" (July).
The Khartoum Summit of the Arab League declares that there will be no Arab recognition, negotiations, or peace with Israel, often referred to as "The Three No's" (September).
UN Resolution 242 establishes the "land for peace" formula, which serves as the basis for negotiations between Israel and her neighbors since the late 1970s. (November).
1968. The settler movement, calling itself Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), is founded on Passover in a hotel in occupied Hebron (April). Through an agreement with the government, the group later establishes the settlement of Kiryat Arba on an abandoned army base east of Hebron.
Within a year of the 1967 War, 14 settlements are established in the occupied territories, mostly in the Golan but also in northern Sinai, the Jordan valley, and Gush Etzion, to the south and southeast of Jerusalem, in the West Bank.
1968-1970. The undeclared War of Attrition starts with Egyptian attacks on Israel in an attempt to recapture the Sinai. Many Israelis had thought that the Arabs were so crushingly defeated in 1967 that they would actively seek peace; this war dented that optimism. 1975. The government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin grants a special 5% tax break to settlers. The rate increases to 7% under PM Menachem Begin in 1978.
1976. Prime Minister Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres, leading a politically weakened Labor Party following the Yom Kippur War, allow the settlement project to continue.
1977. The Labor Party is upset in general elections by Menachem Begin's Likud Party, which stands openly committed to the settler ideology of Greater Israel (May).
1981. The Israeli parliament passes the Golan Law, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights, officially annexing it to the State of Israel (December). 1987. The first Palestinian uprising, or intifada, begins in Gaza and spreads to the West Bank, lasting five years The event marks the first time Palestinians in the occupied territories become significantly involved in the movement against Israeli occupation (December).
1988. PLO leader Yasser Arafat condemns all forms of terrorism and recognizes the state of Israel within pre- 1967-borders. Israel continues to refuse negotiations with the PLO, but the United States opens a dialogue with the group.
1991. The Madrid Peace Conference commences under the auspices of the US and the USSR, marking the first time that Israel and its Arab neighbors (with the exception of Egypt) engage in face-to-face negotiations. The Palestinians are represented in a joint delegation from Jordan. It is later revealed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir intended to drag the negotiations out for as long as 10 years, with no real intention of achieving a compromise.
94,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Settlements, occupation, still the same. http://www.fmep.org/resources/reference/timeline.html I think this might be leaving out some key points. But I like the part about Yasser Arafat condemning terrorism, that part was pretty amusing. Why is it amusing ? It amuses me in the same way as when I see Keith Richards in anti-drug ads. Or bill Clinton talking about marriage. Like when Netanyahu talk about peace right ? So funny. Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:01 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 04 2014 23:43 WhiteDog wrote:
This is exactly the same situation : everybody vote against Israeli in the UN, but the UN has no power. Exactly like back then, only the US, Israel, and some other small country (micronesia, marshal island, trinidad and tobago I think) vote against Israel.
Aside from the UN, every country recognize Israel's "right" to defend itself - aside from now the south african countries who just changed their approach towards Israel, and while most countries (even the US) condemn the settlement, they don't do anything against it, no sanction nothing. So yes, the international community does not care.
Now the public opinion forced the state to change their approach for South Africa, with boycotts and so on (same boycotts are happening in regards to Israel with the BDS) and maybe it will happen for Palestine. I think you just simply too naive. I'll agree that the current situation is fucked up and that Israel is dealing with a monster they had a hand in creating. But thats the thing... they're now dealing with a monster. There is no turning back now because they sort of bought this on themselves. Even if Israel has thoughts of peace now, the average Paletinians mindset is fucked up so much that the only solution seems to just be crippling thier offensive capabilities every few years. It seems like they ran out of ideas and the situation now is analogous to you getting your tetanus booster every 5 years. Israel simply just can't give in to all of Paletinians demand now because of how aggressive they've made the Palestinians. It is now up to the Paletinians to end the conflict, not because it is fair, but because they're only bringing harm onto themselves and thier future generation. Any link with my post at all ? I don't believe Israel will "give in" to Palestinian demand, I believe they will have to be forced to accept the palestinian state by the international community.
I was more replying to what I percieved to be your general sentiment, I may have gotten you confused with EtherealBlade since you're both marines. Point is Palestine must disarm first.
|
I'm glad for once a post of mine got people talking about something
I didn't see any particular replies to it that would require further input from me, if I missed one someone wanted a response to pm me.
It's interesting how threads like this tend to be populated more by people who have already made up their minds, rather than people seeking information and understanding. Of course it's possible that those seeking understanding mostly read the threads rather than post in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
