|
On August 05 2014 00:11 zlefin wrote: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.
Well, people who have not made up their mind dont because they are not interested or when they are, they rather read articles about it. While people who believe they have a sound opinion want to discuss it.
|
On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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.
Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel.
|
On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel.
Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved.
|
Norway28701 Posts
On August 05 2014 00:11 zlefin wrote: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.
That's basically the case, and something you're well off remembering when you're discussing on the internet ; regardless of how convincing your arguments are and how well phrased they are, you are very unlikely to persuade any of the people you are in discussion with. But there are normally quite a lot of people just reading the post without having fully made up their minds - and those people you can sway your way.
|
On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved.
But total "neutrality" is also the kind of viewpoint that will lead nowhere. "Both sides are to blame." Great, now what?
Until people realize that the general population of Palestine can't be held accountable for the actions of a select number of Terrorists, there will never be justice. The conflict in Gaza is Hamas vs. Israel, and I agree that both sides are guilty. But in the greater conflict of Israel vs. the Palestinians (not Hamas) including those in the West Bank, I think there is a clear guilty party.
Israel is using Hamas to justify its actions elsewhere and the media portraying this as an Israel vs. Hamas conflict in which Israel's actions are justified. This is what we have to fight against. Hamas cannot hold millions of people hostage because of our misconception that they represent the will of all Palestinians.
|
Norway28701 Posts
On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved.
There's plenty of room for nuance, there's plenty of room for partial support. In fact mostly everyone has some nuance to their opinion. Virtually nobody here is arguing that Israel needs to cease to exist. Virtually nobody here is arguing that the palestinian loss of life is totally fine. But you are claiming neutrality where neutrality is tacit support of Israel, meaning that you are not neutral.
|
On August 05 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved. There's plenty of room for nuance, there's plenty of room for partial support. In fact mostly everyone has some nuance to their opinion. Virtually nobody here is arguing that Israel needs to cease to exist. Virtually nobody here is arguing that the palestinian loss of life is totally fine. But you are claiming neutrality where neutrality is tacit support of Israel, meaning that you are not neutral.
I don't agree with their tactics, I was only explaining why they are using them and that they are to prevent their own soldiers from possible being taken prisoner. I also don't believe that full blown house to house combat to destroy the rocket/mortar sites would necessarily result in fewer civilian deaths. House to house combat is a hot mess and could get just as many people killed.
But I don't agree with bombing near the UN camps. That part is trash.
|
On August 05 2014 00:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote: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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved. There's plenty of room for nuance, there's plenty of room for partial support. In fact mostly everyone has some nuance to their opinion. Virtually nobody here is arguing that Israel needs to cease to exist. Virtually nobody here is arguing that the palestinian loss of life is totally fine. But you are claiming neutrality where neutrality is tacit support of Israel, meaning that you are not neutral. I don't agree with their tactics, I was only explaining why they are using them and that they are to prevent their own soldiers from possible being taken prisoner. I also don't believe that full blown house to house combat to destroy the rocket/mortar sites would necessarily result in fewer civilian deaths. House to house combat is a hot mess and could get just as many people killed. But I don't agree with bombing near the UN camps. That part is trash.
I think if Israel had to risk its soldiers in home to home combat they might be more willing to opt for peace. Air strikes are too easy and too deadly.
|
do like gandhi, he was the only ingredient in india's independence that mattered! during gandhi there was no violent resistance to the british oppressor! everyone had disarmed. no sound of guns or exposions at that time, only weakening sound of fists hitting ghandis face.
go on strike in your concentration camp! put down your weapons, sit down and wait while israel and the us kiss it right.
haha.
|
On August 05 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved. There's plenty of room for nuance, there's plenty of room for partial support. In fact mostly everyone has some nuance to their opinion. Virtually nobody here is arguing that Israel needs to cease to exist. Virtually nobody here is arguing that the palestinian loss of life is totally fine. But you are claiming neutrality where neutrality is tacit support of Israel, meaning that you are not neutral.
I don't think you understand the point he was trying to make. His main argument is that Gaza should stand down because if they keep going there will only be more avoidable deaths.
Yes yes Israel has some hand in this current conflict blah blah blah but that is only blaming. At this point figuring whos right or wrong is pointless because it leads nowhere. Israel has shown good will in the past and the people of Palesine must follow through, it was the actions of voting in hamas that caused the paradigm shift in Isreal.
|
On August 05 2014 00:49 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote: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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved. There's plenty of room for nuance, there's plenty of room for partial support. In fact mostly everyone has some nuance to their opinion. Virtually nobody here is arguing that Israel needs to cease to exist. Virtually nobody here is arguing that the palestinian loss of life is totally fine. But you are claiming neutrality where neutrality is tacit support of Israel, meaning that you are not neutral. I don't think you understand the point he was trying to make. His main argument is that Gaza should stand down because if they keep going there will only be more avoidable deaths. Yes yes Israel has some hand in this current conflict blah blah blah but that is only blaming. At this point figuring whos right or wrong is pointless because it leads nowhere. Israel has shown good will in the past and the people of Palesine must follow through, it was the actions of voting in hamas that caused the paradigm shift in Isreal.
In the last ten years, Israel has shown considerably less good will than Abbas and the PLO/Fatah. The responsibility for the failure of negotiations to bring about a solution to the conflict largely lies on the side of Israeli governments.
|
My 2 cents.
The world was far too slow to condemn Hamas. A terrorist organisation cannot be the government of a country and the UN and other nations were incredibly foolish to offer aid to a country governed in this way. There is NO justification for this, it doesn't matter what happened in the past there is no justification for terrorism, and a wanton disregard for your own life and the lives of those around you. Hamas sees kindness as a weakness. They take aid and build tunnels, they encourage their wives to have as many children as possible- to build a bigger army, effectively grooming children for death. Their is an evil in the midst of Gaza and the peaceful people of the country must stand up against it. It's not alright to allow missiles to be fired from outside your hospital, shrug it off and say "self-defence". The people of Gaza must take responsibility for this, evil prospers when good people stand by and do nothing. The international community should have worked much harder, and should work much harder now to condemn this group. Even now we see many making arguments against Israel who almost seem to want to sympathise with terrorists. They draw strength from this and it only increases the conflict. We should never apologise for terrorism but should stand up against it. There must be a united world wide disgust against all terrorist groups.
However, this does not justify Israel's actions. They have not only been immoral but also foolish. Their actions only serve to empower Hamas by angering another generation of Palestinians and drawing more to their causes. Palestinians have become completely desensitised to violence and defiant in the face of horrific attacks that would cause immense terror and panic to peaceful people. Once violence is normalised and a common national enemy created, hatred paves the road to terrorism and the cycle continues. Hamas is wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right. Killing innocent civilians is a horrific crime. Israel should withdraw immediately and talk to the UN to come up with a sensible, long term plan to save the region. There must be concessions if rocket fire stops for 6, 12, 18 months - including aid from Israel to rebuild what they have destroyed.
The blockade should be withdrawn if hamas agrees to disband and a peaceful government elected in its place. The UN must be instrumental in making sure this happens. Then we must stop apologising and make sure that hamas is not allowed to come back and influence the peace in the region again.
Will this actually happen? No it won't. The UN is in disarray without strong leadership or common consensus. It has become far too reactionary, situations have already blown far out of control before the UN has even woken up to the threat.
Most likely, Israel will be left to deal with the situation by itself and will continue to make questionable moral decisions to appease its people whilst inadvertently strengthening the resolve of hamas and isolating itself from the world in the process. I hope I'm wrong.
|
On August 05 2014 00:56 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:49 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 05 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved. There's plenty of room for nuance, there's plenty of room for partial support. In fact mostly everyone has some nuance to their opinion. Virtually nobody here is arguing that Israel needs to cease to exist. Virtually nobody here is arguing that the palestinian loss of life is totally fine. But you are claiming neutrality where neutrality is tacit support of Israel, meaning that you are not neutral. I don't think you understand the point he was trying to make. His main argument is that Gaza should stand down because if they keep going there will only be more avoidable deaths. Yes yes Israel has some hand in this current conflict blah blah blah but that is only blaming. At this point figuring whos right or wrong is pointless because it leads nowhere. Israel has shown good will in the past and the people of Palesine must follow through, it was the actions of voting in hamas that caused the paradigm shift in Isreal. In the last ten years, Israel has shown considerably less good will than Abbas and the PLO/Fatah. The responsibility for the failure of negotiations to bring about a solution to the conflict largely lies on the side of Israeli governments.
Yes, that is true and no one argues with that. However, launching rockets is not the solution. Its not going to lead to people getting what they want or the blockade being lifted on Gaza. It only allows Israel to say "look, they want to kill us, why would we negotiate with these people".
Violence just plays in the Israel's hand more.
|
On August 05 2014 00:56 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:49 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 05 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved. There's plenty of room for nuance, there's plenty of room for partial support. In fact mostly everyone has some nuance to their opinion. Virtually nobody here is arguing that Israel needs to cease to exist. Virtually nobody here is arguing that the palestinian loss of life is totally fine. But you are claiming neutrality where neutrality is tacit support of Israel, meaning that you are not neutral. I don't think you understand the point he was trying to make. His main argument is that Gaza should stand down because if they keep going there will only be more avoidable deaths. Yes yes Israel has some hand in this current conflict blah blah blah but that is only blaming. At this point figuring whos right or wrong is pointless because it leads nowhere. Israel has shown good will in the past and the people of Palesine must follow through, it was the actions of voting in hamas that caused the paradigm shift in Isreal. In the last ten years, Israel has shown considerably less good will than Abbas and the PLO/Fatah. The responsibility for the failure of negotiations to bring about a solution to the conflict largely lies on the side of Israeli governments.
Yes but this conflict has lasted more than 10 years, why did you choose such an arbitary number? I choose 2005 because that was when the generally sentiment in Israel was that peace can be achieved by giving the Palestinians what they wanted. They started the process but did not finish because it failed spectacularly.
Yes if we go back further Israel is somewhat responsible for hamas coming into power because they kicked Palestinians out of thier land so many years ago but at some point we must put the past behind us to stop bloodshed. Israel has shown that it was willing at one stage and I believe it can happen again if the Palestinians show the same sentiment.
The son of the founder of Hamas was able to do it and now he much better off than his fellow Palestinians. They just need to follow his example if they want a better life.
|
France266 Posts
On August 04 2014 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:Palestinians tried peace : + Show Spoiler +
Arafat walked away from the 2000 Camp David summit where he didn't even bother to try to negociate, and headed back to Palestine where he remained idle as the second intifada unfolded. He was not, by any means, a supporter of a negociated peace, but a warmonger who thought he would get better terms if he raised the pressure. The only Palestinian leader who can legitimately claim to be working for a peaceful solution is Abbas, and unfortunately for him, he came to power at a time when Israel was radicalising.
On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +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 ?
How are radical zionists' actions in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's relevant in this discussion about the 2014 situation? The 2014 Palestine is not anything like the early Israel.
On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +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".
A colonised state you say? No, just a small piece of land tossed from one realm to the other throughout the centuries. And yes, I do say that if the Palestinians switched to non-violent resistance, they would get a lot more international support for their quest of statehood (or, more accurately, they would make it much harder if not impossible for any nation to unilaterally support the denial of a Palestinian state, including Israel).
On August 04 2014 23:16 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. Why the Palestinians have to disarm first? Those people have been without a homeland for almost 70 years now. Why do they have to prove anything? Shouldn't Israel disarm then as well?Why is it so impossible for Israel to elect a government that recognises those people's right to exist as a state or at least equals that they themselves have invaded and forced into apartheid? When will Israel apologise? Or stop repeating that they are the victims when in reality they are the perpetrators? Palestine stood united just a few months ago, despite the efforts to cut off Gaza from the West Bank. You bet Abbas wasn't going to lead the united government into a war. Israel does not want to negotiate, the easiest way to achieve this is when you can complain that there's noone to negotiate with.
They have to disarm first because there is no other way to achieve their goals. The Palestinian armed struggle is a dead end, and trying to cry foul because the IDF is much stronger will not yield any results. Non-violence is the only path to statehood.
And when the time for the apologies between a fully-recognized Palestinian state and Israel come, it'd better be a reciprocal thing, because the jews are not the only side that has harmed the other over the last 70 years.
On August 04 2014 23:58 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
Is it ? In any war, both sides have the possibility to make the first step toward the resolution of the conflict.
On August 04 2014 23:58 radiatoren wrote:
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.
Yes, and that's why the far-right nutjobs like Avigdor Lieberman are pushing for the complete destruction of the Hamas leadership and infrastructure. They know that, should they succeed in removing Hamas completely, the vacuum will be filled by salafist groups who will be even more uncontrollable than Hamas was, which would then give Israel a pretext to keep pounding on Gaza.
|
Norway28701 Posts
On August 05 2014 00:49 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 05 2014 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:18 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 00:05 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2014 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:53 Plansix wrote: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: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. Not taking a stance against Israel, is going with the statu quo and being indirectly behind israel. If you wish so much to be neutral, ask your country to stop supporting Israel. Exactly, if your not with us, your against us. Its this sort of myopic view point that escalated everything to this point. No room for nuance or partial support. Its all or nothing. Its no wonder this has never been resolved. There's plenty of room for nuance, there's plenty of room for partial support. In fact mostly everyone has some nuance to their opinion. Virtually nobody here is arguing that Israel needs to cease to exist. Virtually nobody here is arguing that the palestinian loss of life is totally fine. But you are claiming neutrality where neutrality is tacit support of Israel, meaning that you are not neutral. I don't think you understand the point he was trying to make. His main argument is that Gaza should stand down because if they keep going there will only be more avoidable deaths. Yes yes Israel has some hand in this current conflict blah blah blah but that is only blaming. At this point figuring whos right or wrong is pointless because it leads nowhere. Israel has shown good will in the past and the people of Palesine must follow through, it was the actions of voting in hamas that caused the paradigm shift in Isreal.
Your definition of "the past" defines whether I mildly or vehemently disagree with you. I don't think Israel has shown much if any good will during the past 10 years, and I think they have been the main instigator for the past 40.
And it's funny how you're like, blah blah blah that is only blaming, when it concerns Israel, but you're willing to accept that electing hamas is an acceptable catalyst for Israel's response.
I actually have a major issue with that; that you consider the election of hamas a catalyst, and not a response in itself. The election of Hamas should be something that makes you realize how shitty the situation was prior to that, not something that gives Israel a thumbs up to make the situation even worse.
It's even more disconcerning to me that like, we, as the west, are imposing democracy on middle eastern countries. like, go vote, become democratic like us, and you can experience freedom like us. And then the citizens of Gaza uses that power to vote, but they vote for a regime we hate, so instead it becomes okay to restrict their freedom further. It's then used as even another reasoning for dehumanizing the Palestinians - they voted for terrorists so clearly they are terrorists, which again makes the "civilian" casualties easier to swallow, because fuck it man, they're hardly even civilians when they vote for terrorists.
|
That has more to do with imposing democracy poorly than democracy in general; most impositions are done foolishly, too quickly, and with too much focus on the national rather than local level, and without the needed institution building.
|
On August 05 2014 00:48 nunez wrote:
do like gandhi, he was the only ingredient in india's independence that mattered! during gandhi there was no violent resistance to the british oppressor! everyone had disarmed. no sound of guns or exposions at that time, only weakening sound of fists hitting ghandis face.
go on strike in your concentration camp! put down your weapons, sit down and wait while israel and the us kiss it right.
haha.
Yeah it's not like they would label a completely peaceful person a terrorist too...
A "rare British Parliament paper declaring Gandhi a terrorist" from 1932, which had a guide price of between £200 and £300, went for £260.
Source
|
On August 05 2014 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Your definition of "the past" defines whether I mildly or vehemently disagree with you. I don't think Israel has shown much if any good will during the past 10 years, and I think they have been the main instigator for the past 40.
Ok so withdrawing from Gaza is not a sign of good will. Yes we must do everything all at once instead of baby steps. Because thats very wise.
On August 05 2014 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And it's funny how you're like, blah blah blah that is only blaming, when it concerns Israel, but you're willing to accept that electing hamas is an acceptable catalyst for Israel's response.
On August 05 2014 01:06 TrainSamurai wrote:
Yes if we go back further Israel is somewhat responsible for hamas coming into power because they kicked Palestinians out of thier land so many years ago but at some point we must put the past behind us to stop bloodshed.
On August 05 2014 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's even more disconcerning to me that like, we, as the west, are imposing democracy on middle eastern countries. like, go vote, become democratic like us, and you can experience freedom like us. And then the citizens of Gaza uses that power to vote, but they vote for a regime we hate, so instead it becomes okay to restrict their freedom further. It's then used as even another reasoning for dehumanizing the Palestinians - they voted for terrorists so clearly they are terrorists, which again makes the "civilian" casualties easier to swallow, because fuck it man, they're hardly even civilians when they vote for terrorists.
I don't really see whats wrong with this. The blockage didn't happen immediately after the election.
I didn't say they Palestinians should change because Israel is in the right. I said if they don't change they're just going to keep dying without ever achieving anything.
Whats your solution genius? If Israel doesn't back down are you gonig to tell Palestinians to have a cry and keep fighting Israel and dying? Or maybe we should rely on the international community? The international community has always sook about the loss of human life then just sit back and watch because thier soldiers dying cause too much of a political shit storm.
|
On August 05 2014 01:15 zlefin wrote:
That has more to do with imposing democracy poorly than democracy in general; most impositions are done foolishly, too quickly, and with too much focus on the national rather than local level, and without the needed institution building.
I think issue is just that people have different beliefs and values, interfering in general is a bad thing. Who are we to say that democracy is the perfect system for other people? There's a general assumption that Democracy is just better than everything else so every nation should have Democracy whether they like it or not. How would you feel if a new superpower appeared ruled by making decisions based on asking the person with the highest IQ to make all the decisions and then tried to impose that system on your country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
