then why are you getting mad at israel for defending itself? here is the hypocrasy in statements like this.
1. it is ok for hamas or any other terrorist organization to launch suicide bombers and other attacks at civilian targets in israel.
No. You are making that up. I never said terror attacks of any kind are acceptable. I said on multiple occasions Hamas needs to be dealt with. Yet for some reason you think I'm cool with them. Epic reading comprehension failure on your part. I'll break it up real easy for you to understand: Hamas' violence against civilians is wrong for the same reason the IDF's violence against civilians is wrong. I don't support violence against civilians of any kind.
2. when israel responds with due force because of these attacks then all of a sudden israel is a demon.
You have failed to explain how shelling an inhabited urban area with white phosphorus and cluster bombs constitutes "responding with due force" rather than an all-out atrocity, and an unlawful one at that. The fact that the IDF constantly tries to lie about and impede investigations of their use of force in Gaza and other instances is telling that they have trouble demonstrating their acts are "responding with due force", so how you can try to make that argument without batting an eyelash and without presenting anything more than your opinion to back it is completely baffling.
I mean, did you *look* at the graphic I posted?
your arguement fails all over the place for this reason.
Not only you're wrong, but you *don't* have an argument yourself. All you're responding with is your opinion. I know you're a unique snowflake and what you have to say is very interesting, but it still constitutes a poor defense for Israel breaking international law and killing a bunch of people.
it is groups like hamas an fatah and others that bring suffering on their people by constantly launching attacks against israel.
Your double standard is almost as terrible as your grammar and spelling. Fatah and specially Hamas are groups of radical extremists and you despise them for that. Yet you don't seem to think it is bad at all that the IDF doesn't hold itself to a higher standard than that of fanatical thugs.
the fact of the matter is they are not going to stop. israel military presence is never going to leave gaza or the west bank as long as these attacks continue.
I know IDF military presence is necessary in Palestine. If you read the links I posted, the problem is that they go *much* farther than that and they have basically killed the Palestinian economy and marginalized their people.
wrong the palestinian terror groups have done that to their own people. the palestinian people by supporting said groups have brought their own misery to themselves.
Yeah, please explain to me how the 400 children killed in the Gaza offensive brought that upon themselves. Or the children killed by snipers in 2005 while they were playing soccer brought it upon themselves. Or how Mounir's sister and her sons brought this upon themselves.
It's not like there is another group to support. The crudeness of the conflict has all but wiped out the possibility of a pro-Israel party emerging in Palestine. Israel is responsible for half of that. The crippling isolation of the Palestinian economy has made it so that now all the economical power in the country is concentrated in the hands of Hamas. Israel is responsible for *all* of that.
not really because you only see one side of the issue and that is israel bad palestinian people poor victims.
sorry this is a very poor view of the situation. is israel always right no, but they have to carry strict rules in order to keep the people living their safe.
That's funny, how is stealing land, ostracizing and abusing civilians and committing war crimes part of these "strict rules" of safety you speak of?
it is funny that i don't see the UN denouncing all these bombs that get launch and suicide bombers that get carried out in israel on a daily basis. of course this isn't anything new from the UN.
More so because it was the UN that put them in that mess to begin with. You would think that the UN would take more responsibility for thier own mess.
So now the UN is in bed with Hamas too. Nice. What do you propose the UN does?
this just shows your misaligned bias.
You would not be the best person to make that judgement as you have proven time and again in this thread your beliefs are out of touch.
if you start shooting or throw rocks at my house or do anything to my house i have a right to defend that house by any means i deem needed to defend my family and keep them safe.
Actually, you don't have the "right" to use "any means you deem necessary" in that case. The law is quite explicit as to what you're allowed to do (and if you're seriously implying you could respond to someone throwing rocks at your window by shooting him... I hope you don't try to put that theory to the test because you'll wind up in prison faster than you can snap your fingers). Same as is the case for a military offensive. The IDF doesn't care to play along with the law, though.
maybe hamas should stop being cowards and not hide behind civilians or use human shields as their protection. it is kinda hard to fight someone when they are on a roof top that happens to be a family residence.
Nice scapegoat. Even if Hamas wasn't using human shield, cluster bombing and shelling an urban area can and *will* cause a ****load of casualties. Moreover since Israel's massive-scale bombing started at a time children in Gaza were going home from school...
this of course is a side effect of unintended consquences.
Perfectly avoidable consequences. Don't cluster bomb civilians. Don't fire white phosphorus shells at them. How difficult is that?
there will always be people in this world not like the jews or the nation of israel for whatever reason. it isn't like they have done anything to these people at all.
Did you bother to read any of the links I have posted in this thread...?
kinda hard to do things on a daily basis when you are always on the watch for bombers and bombings. maybe if the people of palestine want to live a better life then they should try getting their back yard cleaned up a bit.
And how do you propose they do that? Since Israel's genius move of smothering the Palestinian economy with their blockades, their wall and their illegal settlements, the only people who have any money in Palestine are Hamas. While morally admirable, for any Palestinian to oppose Hamas at present would be totally foolish and most probably suicidal. Before there is the least chance to purge radicalism from Palestine, Israel has to backpedal on all its ****head moves.
No i wouldn't live over there because i know for a fact that there are groups of terrorist organizations that launch rockets from civilian homes and places into israel. i also know for a fact that israel has a way of dealing with said terrorists.
Talk about blowing things way out of proportion. You make it sound as if the average Israeli regularly has their house bombed by Hamas. Suicide attacks have slowed to all but a halt and Hamas fires the occasional ineffectual Qassam rocket at Sderot. You're hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by an act of terror here. Israel isn't one big war zone, other than certain areas along the border with Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank you're safe.
I know that. They are nonetheless very badly chosen.
Of course they are. As I said, Mystery25 is making a huge mess of things and isn't doing a favor to either side of this debate.
Quote from Tuss »
The legal sense is not as interesting as the practical sense.
I can't think of any proper comparison for the current societal situation in Israel. There's certainly widespread enmity on both sides towards the other but it can be at least partially justified. There's also the issue of the language barrier which can partly explain the higher fail rate for the matriculation exams among Arab students along with cultural mores that put less emphasis on higher education. Actual proactive discrimination isn't nearly as rampant as you make it sound. You'll hear about the occasional hate crime perpetrated by a Jew or Arab, but few are actively trying to oppress Israeli Arabs. The main culprits are far-right politicians such as the head of the Yisrael Beiteinu ("Israel is our home" :-/) party Avigdor Lieberman and head of Shas, Eli Yishai who at every turn try to denounce Israel's Arab population and deny them their rights. Thankfully said leaders wield *relatively* little power compared to the more moderate parties in the Knesset.
Quote from Tuss »
Israel is the de facto ruling force of the occupied territories. The Palestinian people do not have sovereignty. They are not free to leave their lands as they wish nor are they free to move around on them as they wish.
Israel may be the de facto ruling power in the occupied territories but the Palestinian Authority rules there de jure. So long as the Palestinian Authority does not recognize Israel's right to exist, Israel cannot be expected to treat the occupied territories as anything but such, and as with *all* occupations come stringent security policies that deny people their rights.
Quote from Tuss »
Israel's way of dealing with it being launching extensive bombing raids on civilian homes. The children wouldn't have been killed if Israel hadn't bombed them. This is not remotely moral or even proportional. You're sitting here and blaming the people who got killed for being forced to live in a ghetto.
The IDF can't be put entirely to blame here. Hamas employed deplorable tactics during the operation, literally using children as meat shields with the dual purpose of defending themselves and inciting even more anger against Israel. The reason children, the elderly and the sick became casualties is because Hamas stored weapons and hid operatives in civilian homes, hospitals and mosques. Before every military strike that might endanger civilians, fliers warning people to flee were air-dropped en masse and SMSess were sent out. Hamas encouraged civilians, perhaps forcibly (I'm not knowledgeable enough regarding this aspect of Operation Cast Lead) to stay and risk their lives to ensure the safety of Hamas militants. Considering the population density of Gaza city, the guerrilla tactics employed by Hamas, and the relative small percentage of the population composed of said militants. However much it pains me to say so, having 50% of the operation's casualties be Hamas fighters is still a relative success.
Regarding the issue of the use of inhumane weapons during Operation Cast Lead. Although not widespread, military officials faced harsh obloquy for their senseless use of phosphorous bombs and I believe a committee to clear up those issues is still ongoing.
Quote from Tuss »
I would also like to add that the settlers are not innocent civilians. They are volunteering to aid a military campaign of genocide by helping to displace the Palestinian people. What they are doing is illegal by international law that Israel has signed and ratified. There is no excuse for building settlements on occupied land.
The settlers face opprobrium by a large segment of the population but I feel the term "genocide" is extremely hyperbolic. Although there are definitely violations of international law going on over there, there is no systematic ongoing murder of Palestinians. The settlers themselves are hardly the most sympathetic lot but in no way are they supporting any kind of genocide. According to Genocide Watch, Israel hardly qualifies as a perpetrator of genocide against the Palestinian people. There is certainly a large degree of "Classification" with the Palestinians being deemed "them" but I really don't see any of the other signs in the current paradigm.
The problem with claiming that Hamas hides among a civilian population is that, well, have you seen a map of Gaza? It's impossible to not be among civilians. This is why it's so silly to pretend that you're being gracious and kind by dropping leaflets before you bomb people's houses. Where are they supposed to go? Official buildings? Heh. UN compounds? They too were targeted. Hospitals? They were overcrowded with the wounded and weren't safe either. Another thing is Israel's loose definition of what constitutes a Hamas militant. It's anything from actual militants to police officers to men over the age of fifteen.
And another big thing to keep in mind is that this is a separate problem and not at all a defence for dropping bombs on known civilian targets. If the guy you're ostensibly trying to target specifically is in the middle of a crowd and you launch grenades at him anyway it is your fault when civilians get killed. You're the one who decided to do it, after all. Nobody has magical Jew control rays that make them do things they wouldn't want to otherwise (if they did I can think of better uses anyway). Responsibility lies with the one who pulls the trigger.
We aren't in the 19th century anymore, and sadly, civilian deaths are par for the course in any military action. For example, estimates place the civilian death toll of the entire Iraq War at approximately 100,000 adding that many deaths go undocumented and that the figure given might be lower than reality, some even going so far as to give an estimate of 600,000. This is 2 to 10 times the number of the estimated Iraqi insurgent death toll (55,000). Both the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the IDF don't seem like the most objective sources for death counts so I'll average the two. Approximately 600 militants and police officers were killed in Operation Cast Lead while 612 civilians were killed. This is a 50% civilian death rate as opposed to 64% to 91% for the Iraq war. One must also not forget that Iraq is far less dense than Gaza (71.2 people/sq. km as opposed to 4,118 people/sq. km).
Going back to Operation Cast Lead, of course the IDF wasn't being "kind" or "gracious". Their main objective is to defend Israel from organizations such as Hamas and civilian deaths are an unfortunate byproduct of war *both* sides are to blame for. Hamas could have minimized civilian deaths by keeping weapon stockpiles out of schools, hospitals and private homes; instead they chose to use their citizens as meat shields.
Regarding the broad definition of what a "militant is. The definition used by the IDF that includes men over the age of 15 is oddly appropriate when said 15 year olds are loaded with M12s and grenades. It's very saddening that such a situation where a 15 year old is pushed into combat even exists. Extremist Muslim organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah encourage youths to rise up in violent rebellion. Sadly, even a child with a gun can kill.
Quote from Tuss »
As for genocide, according to the link you posted (and that I was going to use anyway, thanks) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Under_international_law
there is not at all a requirement for organised mass death taking place under a short period of time. You can in fact commit the crime of genocide without actively killing anyone at all. This is because the crime is not literally about the deaths of a people but about the destruction of the cultural institution of a people. It doesn't have to be wildly successful either. You simply need to take a look at the West Bank and at the conditions in Gaza to conclude that if this is not the intentional disenfranchisement and replacement of a people then it is the most criminally incompetent behaviour in history.
According to the U.N. Genocide is any act with the intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical [sic], racial or religious group". There's a *huge* difference between denying an ethnic group rights as part of a belligerent occupation such as in the West Bank and "destroying their cultural institution".
The West Bank is currently in a stable situation and living conditions there are certainly passable. The main issue is that with Israel being the British Mandate of Palestine's successor state, the West Bank is technically Israeli land. However, Israel isn't interested in annexing the West Bank as that would entail giving 2.2 million Palestinians citizenship and rights which leaves the West Bank in limbo being quasi-illegally occupied. Jordan isn't interested in annexing the West Bank either and their leaders have gone on the record stating that should control of the West Bank shift to Jordan, they would just institute a similar military occupation in place of Israel. The only seemingly feasible solution is for the West Bank to gain sovereignty which is sadly currently only a pipe dream.
Gaza is in an entirely different situation. It's led by an illegitimate terror organization and there really isn't anyone to talk to over there. Living conditions are certainly abhorrent and residents of the strip have little to no rights, but all of this is a product of Hamas's regime. Israel *isn't* currently occupying the Gaza Strip and has little to no bearing on the conditions therein aside from marching in and forcibly removing Hamas (it's an endless cycle where military action strengthens Hamas's platform and leaves Gaza off where it started). The fact that Israel has to supply electricity, food, water, medical assistance and other supplies to an entity that is actively trying to eradicate it is ludicrous.
*Every* city has issues with squatters. Putting a racism spin on that story doesn't change the fact that the houses to be demolished were built illegally on property not zoned for residences. The addition of a shopping mall and tourist attractions in East Jerusalem could greatly benefit Palestinian shop-owners and residents. Also, I really don't see the connection to Lieberman's Plan. I assure you the aforementioned East Jerusalemites are being relocated to somewhere else in East Jerusalem as opposed to a different country.
You must not forget that Palestinians want East Jerusalem for their capital , if an area is cleared of them and a Jewish owned mall is built then to whom does that land belong to now?This is a battle for space and every inch counts , you live there , you should know that.If a zone is cleared of Palestinians then it doesn't matter if they are moved in another district where their own live in East Jerusalem because they have lost that land.Also how gracious of Israel to evict Palestinians , give their land to Israelis and then hire evicted Palestinians to work there.If Palestinians are squatters then what are the settlers?:rolleyes:
Not all Palestinians are squatters; those ones specifically are. Squatting is occupying land you do not legally own. Like it or not, that specific lot was purchased by Jews.
One of the first documentaries I picked up about the Israeli/Palestinian issue was The Iron Wall. It's been uploaded on YouTube and it's fairly well done. I recommend people give it a watch.
I've also been reading up on the US's military-industrial complex. The US is backing up Israel because there is money to be made. This isn't a national decision, this is a decision made by corporations, and their decisions are enforced by lobbyists as well as politicians with monitary interests in mind. The US is one of the largest suppliers of weapons in the world. You think Palestinians are fighting with non-American weapons? How convenient it is that most of the Western media is depicting them with rusty AKs and RPG-7s. Most of the middle-east is supplied with american and european weaponry, and it finds its way down to the hands of hamas, fatah and the plo, they get them in afghanistan, iraq, iran and lebanon too, don't be fooled. You think they make m4 knock-offs in china? Look at any photos and you'll see arabs carrying american weapons... hmmm
Divide and conquer make a profit.
That's one facet of the issue. Nevermind political and religious implications. It's all very multi-faceted and rather complicated. Hard to have a conversation about in general, gives me headaches when I talk to people about it.
Asking out a girl is like trying to cast a first turn Necropotence. Sometimes the other player will have the Force of Will to say no. You shouldn't let that stop you from trying it.
I've also been reading up on the US's military-industrial complex. The US is backing up Israel because there is money to be made. This isn't a national decision, this is a decision made by corporations and lobbies. You think Palestinians are fighting with non-American weapons? Most of the middle-east is supplied with american weaponry, and it finds its way down to the hands of hamas, fatah and the plo, they get them in afghanistan, iraq, iran and lebanon too, don't be fooled. You think they make m4 knock-offs in china? Look at any photos and you'll see arabs carrying american weapons... hmmm
Isn't the primary weapon used there the AK-47 or a variant?
It seems that coincidentally most lots in Jerusalem are being bought by Jews, coincidence?Also whose court said that these Palestinians were squatters?If it was an Israeli court are you sure they weren't biased?How is it that Palestinians with deeds have been evicted in the west bank but you are adamant that Israeli courts are fair and balanced...Please note that when you make the law anyone can be a squatter.Don't forget that before 1946 this city belonged to the Palestinians so who is the squatter here ?More importantly don't you think that moves like this inflame a situation already tense and should be avoided?In the end how do you envision this conflict ending and do you think that Palestinians are treated fairly by the Israelis.
Why would the Palestinian courts have any bearing on this issue when Jerusalem in its entirety is currently under Israeli rule?
One of the first documentaries I picked up about the Israeli/Palestinian issue was The Iron Wall. It's been uploaded on YouTube and it's fairly well done. I recommend people give it a watch.
I've also been reading up on the US's military-industrial complex. The US is backing up Israel because there is money to be made. This isn't a national decision, this is a decision made by corporations, and their decisions are enforced by lobbyists as well as politicians with monitary interests in mind. The US is one of the largest suppliers of weapons in the world. You think Palestinians are fighting with non-American weapons? How convenient it is that most of the Western media is depicting them with rusty AKs and RPG-7s. Most of the middle-east is supplied with american and european weaponry, and it finds its way down to the hands of hamas, fatah and the plo, they get them in afghanistan, iraq, iran and lebanon too, don't be fooled. You think they make m4 knock-offs in china? Look at any photos and you'll see arabs carrying american weapons... hmmm
Divide and conquer make a profit.
That's one facet of the issue. Nevermind political and religious implications. It's all very multi-faceted and rather complicated. Hard to have a conversation about in general, gives me headaches when I talk to people about it.
Don't get too Marxist and ignore cultural reasons as well. It's a trap a number of academics fall into with the whole neo-Marxist interpretation of history as their sole sine qua non. It's a wonderful part of thinking to understand the world by, but a good analytical framework needs multiple ways to look at conflicts.
The military complex does exist, but so does sheer idealogues coupled with foolishness with theories that are based on overly simple theories based on how nation-states function like domino theory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
There's certainly evidence for Israeli discrimination/oppression of Palestinians... but is that religious persecution, ethnic persecution, political persecution...? With that region, it seems one and the same...
Which is why state religions are such a terribly bad idea. It's all one kind of oppression. It links all three of these cycles of hatred and retaliation into each other, so that even if one of them starts winding down, it'll be revved back up by one of the others. Perpetual Motion machines may be impossible, but Israel and Palestine seem to have successfully invented the Perpetual Hate machine.
Not in a "war," certainly, but when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of non-extremist Muslims... Israel is no saint, and there's always a kind of belligerence about it. "We're here, we're Israel, get over it."
1) Historical alliance - The US may have more important allies (The UK, say) but I would say none are stronger in the core of loyalty to the US, I simply cannot envisage a scenario where Israel voted against US interests in the US for instance. Also remember that Arab nations in the area were backed by the Soviet Union, and Israel provided a genuine service to the US by enabling them to counter that influence.
You're quite right. But that state of affairs has concluded. It's madness for us to continue to consider Israel that necessary to our needs in the region. The alliance is costing us more than we gain from it.
3) Israeli politicians seem more media savy in terms of appealing to western sensibilities - speciffically US
Sadly, peacefulness is not high on the list of western sensibilities. At least, not as high as wearing a suit, shaving, and speaking good English is. Our priorities are very childish.
The US support of Israel is ultimately rooted in the belief that the Jewish people must control the Holy Land for the Rapture to occur. I'm not saying that this is the belief of everyone who supports Israel, but there is a large enough block of Evangelical Christians that this beliefs has a tangible effect on US foreign policy.
I wasn't aware of this until several years ago myself, but you are right. There is a (in my opinion, revolting) belief among many Evangelical protestants that the eschatological purpose of the Jews is to pave the way for the end of the world (after which, naturally, they will be consigned to hell for not being Christians). How generous and loving!
Of course, I was raised Catholic, so my attitudes towards Christianity are colored by this. But I have always found these death-mongering rapturist viewpoints, and the so-called "Jews for Jesus", horribly offensive and tasteless. It's a pity they weigh so heavily in our politics.
I wish the UN had never created Israel. Its caused nothing but strife and war since it was created. Simply giving people a homeland doesn't work. Just look at Liberia and Sierra Leone. It didn't work there and it didn't work in Israel. Why Jews want to live in an area where nearly every neighbor wants to bomb you out of existence is beyond me. The Holy Land is still the Holy Land whether you live there or not.
Well, a.) I'd put more of the blame on the UK than on the UN, and b.) I've never understood, either, why any Jew would rather live in the "Holy Land" surrounded by violence and hatred rather than live in what I consider the true homeland of the Jews, the country that has more Jews living in it than any other, where they enjoy full equality and, in fact, a powerful political lobby, and are in no direct physical danger: the good ol' U.S. of A.
Third, by what you're saying it sounds like America is the only reason Israel is still running. That we give them tons of money, which is not true. What's wrong with us being allies with them?
The company you keep reflects upon you. Just today I found out that a guy I know was abusing and mistreating his girlfriend, also a friend of mine. He's no longer a friend of mine, I'm done with him, and I've let all our mutual friends know. I don't understand how a nation can perceive itself as a moral entity and not exhibit the same discrimination in how it picks its friends. If Israel's actions are immoral, how can a moral nation ally itself with Israel? In my opinion what we should be discussing is: what is the moral character of the nation of Israel? Does it have a moral character we can be proud to associate with, or not? My answer is currently a provisional "no", but I'm willing to listen to arguments pro, if any can be made sensibly and without appeal to racism or jingoism against the Palestinians.
There is definitely no separation of church/state in America, no matter how much we say there is.
Israel is not 100% Jewish, there are many Christians, Muslims, and Druse who inhabit the region as well.
Israel has tailored its democracy to fit its needs. Not every democracy can be the same.
Well, it's true that separation of church and state in America is very weak, and falls far short of our Jeffersonian ideals. But you go too far in saying there is NONE. Yes, religionism is the strongest and most pervasive prejudice in America today, but it is nothing compared to the nightmare it would be if the protestant Christian majority in this country was able to establish itself as a bona fide state religion. THEN you'd see some real oppression.
In Israel's favor, I will credit them for not wasting any breath on ideals of secularism that they don't truly believe in.
Palestinians? Innocent? The ones aiming hundreds of rockets a day at Israeli schools and hospitals? The ones that, even though Israel is at war with them, Israel provides electricity, medical supplies, food, etc. to?
Typical error I see in these debates: conflating the Palestinian people, who are just civilian men, women, and children trying to get by, make a living, and care for their loved ones, with the armed terrorists living in their midst. This would be similar to calling everyone in West Virginia a member of a violent white supremacist organization just because *some* are. It's unfair and succeeds only in proving your own poor grasp of the situation.
I think terrorists hate America for their own reasons, and if support for Israel is a part, it's a pretty small part. Either way, you're saying we shouldn't support a just cause because it might draw the ire of violent psychopathic fanatics?
What, praytell, is just about Israel's "cause"? I'm not saying there can't be anything just about it, I'd just like to know what you see as "just" about what they do.
2) Israel has tried MULTIPLE TIMES to create a Palestinian state. Again, the offers are declined so that they can be pointed to as a measure of Israel's wickedness.
Or could it be because the offers were simply unacceptable? Hmm... I will agree that Arafat in particular seemed to be very much an obstructionist and more interested in furthering his own political agenda rather than a peace process. Then again, Sharon and Netanyahu were also similarly obstructionist. There are many on both sides who stand to lose much if there is ever peace.
And who are you to say all of this? Its also given the Jewish people a renewed identity, a homeland, a place where they can escape persecution, and so much more. Maybe there has been tons of conflict, but it has definitely been worth it. We want to live there because at least its something. And of course the biblical roots, Jerusalem, etc.
Identity, a feeling of homeland, and biblical roots do not justify the expulsion of an indigenous population and causing them to become homeless. And there is already (though it could be said that in 1948, there was not) a place where Jews can escape persecution: right here in the U.S.A. So I don't see why we need to support their "escaping persecution" by living, at great military expense, in the middle of a warzone rather than, say, anywhere in these great 50 states. Just because it's a special piece of land to them? Fine for them, but I don't consider it special land, so can my tax money not go to pay for their fixation on it, please?
until the world gives native americans, australian aboriginees, or hell even eastern european gypsies a homeland. the whole "wah wah we were persecuted so give us a country" thing is just silly rhetoric.
Agreed. Besides, there are far more ethnicities and culture groups to provide sovereignty to each of them. The world would be nothing but countries the size of Lichtenstein if we did that, and dealing with all the borders and petty kings would make international trade impossible. It would be a return to the Dark Ages.
The course of the future is towards amalgamation and away from balkanization. Possibly, even, towards unified democratic world government. As such I have zero sympathy for groups who want to break away from us and have their own private clubhouse where they can kick out anyone who is different. Our future is to live together, to learn to love what each of us brings to society, and in the long run, to hybridize those unique strands into a new whole.
Or, in the words of the most beautiful phrase in our constitution, "To form a more perfect union."
Is at least some part of their cultural group made up of upper class people with a strong nationalist philosophy that were displaced but still have upper class privilege they can bank on, and does their future homeland sit on an important strategic spot for a major empire?
Well, tough luck then.
lol. Dark Angel gets extra points for being funny and right at the same time.
Does not compute. I read it the same way as one might read "the money they rightfully took in a bank robbery".
Military conquest is by definition theft. It is the taking of something against another's will through coercive force.
I think your fellow-debater was trying to claim that the war in which Israel conquered the lands in question was a defensive one. I personally don't understand why, in a defensive war, one would conquer anything more than what one owned when the war began, but... Still, I don't particularly agree that the war was entirely defensive in the first place. And to that extent, I agree with you.
Lets say China invades the US an conquers Massachusetts. Would you expect America to say, "oh well, they won I guess it is ok that they took our land", or would you expect us to never stop fighting to get it back?
lol. This IS Mystery you're talking to... I think he'd probably feel we're better off without "Taxachusetts" (j/k Mystery, I know you love us liberals, we <3 you too! )
How nice of Israel to let the original inhabitants of that land to live on their stolen land as second class citizens though.
Well, as the nation responsible for the Trail of Tears, I'm not sure nations in the region want to hear what we have to say about that. We lack the moral authority to condescend. :/
Apartheid? Are you seriously making that comparison? Really?
Feel free to disagree, but the comparison is made very frequently. You'd do better to state your opposition and make your case, than to try to write it off.
Honestly, I'd like to know where you get this garbage from, it *is* cringe-inducing to read your posts on this subject. I reccomend for you to open any credible history book.
le sigh... I think you're wasting your breath, but good luck with this.
This is collective punishment. The only reason to do any of these things is if you wish to drive away or starve a people. I'm not going to be kind enough to assume that Israel is just a bunch of bumbling fools. Their actions speak for themselves.
Agreed on the "collective punishment". I think it is possible that the people of Israel are not collectively aware that they are essentially engaging in genocidal acts. But this did not excuse the Germans. And that is the irony that sickens me and saddens me to tears. :/
I don't know what it is that would make Hamas illegitimate. They won the election against Fatah fair and square and then emerged victorious from the resulting coup attempt. They couldn't have done it without Israeli backing, of course, because religious zeal wasn't in vogue previously.
Indeed. One can have any variety of opinions on Hamas as an organization (personally, I dislike them), but to try to claim they are illegitimate is nonsense. Like it or not, they won. This is the peril of introducing people to the concept of democracy. Sometimes - GASP - they will elect someone you do not like!
My take on the situation: I think the U.S. should grant an exception in its immigration laws such that any citizen of Israel may immigrate here and start a new life. The ones who don't and stubbornly insist on continuing to live surrounded by the people they've pissed off, well, to them I say bon chance, mes amis. I don't see why we need to defend them when they don't want to be part of our society; if some strip of dirt (well, I'm told it's very "fertile" dirt, but to me, dirt is dirt) where they believe some mythological figure once walked is more important to them than the safety of their families and children, then I'll never be able to understand them.
That's one facet of the issue. Nevermind political and religious implications. It's all very multi-faceted and rather complicated. Hard to have a conversation about in general, gives me headaches when I talk to people about it.
Don't get too Marxist and ignore cultural reasons as well. It's a trap a number of academics fall into with the whole neo-Marxist interpretation of history as their sole sine qua non. It's a wonderful part of thinking to understand the world by, but a good analytical framework needs multiple ways to look at conflicts.
Just wanted to point out that what you quote as being narrow has three consecutive sentences saying that there's many other issues.
I am just completely baffled. No matter what Israel does, we continue to give them money. They can literally do anything they want and the US response will always be "we remain strong allies, here have some more money." They must be laughing at us over there.
I am just completely baffled. No matter what Israel does, we continue to give them money. They can literally do anything they want and the US response will always be "we remain strong allies, here have some more money." They must be laughing at us over there.
So what exactly is Israel doing wrong here? Missile defense is a pretty uncontentiously good goal, especially for the country that's probably suffered the most missile attacks in history.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It is wrong if Israel plans to attack Lebanon and have it's citizens safe from the retaliation that is the only thing stopping them from launching another operation like Gaza or the one a few years back that killed hundreds of innocents and only stopped because they might suffer losses from Hezbolah missiles.Israel has been itching for years to avenge that defeat and raze much of Lebanon to the ground like Gaza ,why give them the money to start another war?
If Israel really wanted to "raze Lebanon to the ground", Hezbollah's missiles certainly wouldn't stop them from doing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, they are contributing to the military prowess of a genocidal nation. That's kind of a Big Deal to some.
"Genocide" is such a fun word, isn't it? Makes people jump and squirm and call to mind images of naked emaciated corpses piled like cordwood as the snow of the harsh Polish winter drifts against them. Such intoxicating power over people's emotions and imagination, all from a mere three syllables! I don't know why we don't use it more often. "Hey, did you catch the game last night? It was a complete genocide!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"Genocide" is such a fun word, isn't it? Makes people jump and squirm and call to mind images of naked emaciated corpses piled like cordwood as the snow of the harsh Polish winter drifts against them. Such intoxicating power over people's emotions and imagination, all from a mere three syllables! I don't know why we don't use it more often. "Hey, did you catch the game last night? It was a complete genocide!"
Do you have an actual point?
It's not like Tuss hasn't provided several arguments why he believes the IDF's aggressiveness can be called genocidal. I have reservations about adopting that point of view, but you're making it sound like he uses the term purely for shock value while he has explained why he does it several times in this thread and yet others before it.
It is true that the IDF, US Army and other invading armed forces around the world incur in abominable killings of civilians by continuing to deploy high-end offensive weapons loaded with uncontrollable destructive firepower such as Merkava and Abrams tanks and Spectre gunships against an enemy completely embedded in an urban landscape. This should have been internationally banned a long time ago.
So what exactly is Israel doing wrong here? Missile defense is a pretty uncontentiously good goal, especially for the country that's probably suffered the most missile attacks in history.
It's not what it is being used for, it's that we continue to give them money. Money is money, whether it is used for building hospitals or missile defense systems. The fact remains that we are supporting what I consider an immoral regime. And it just baffles me to no end that they keep getting money no matter what they do. They give a big middle finger to the US with more settlements in Gaza, and we turn around and give them more money. Not only that, we give them money in a way that we do for no other country. We give aid to them in a way that maximizes how much they get at our expense, and we even allow them to use that money to purchase weapons from their own companies. Other countries have to buy from the US.
The special treatment wouldn't make sense even if Israel did pay attention to our wishes. But the fact that they can antagonize us and continue with the types of actions they have undertaken in past years and we STILL give them better aid than anyone else makes no sense.
The images it evokes in your mind are your own problem and don't have anything to do with the legal definition of the crime of genocide as used by the UN.
Yeah, that's kind of why the legal definition sucks.
If you have an issue with the terms they use it'd be best to take it up with them because I sadly can't help you with it. I do know that you think that the word itself should apply to a much more narrowly defined act than the current "crime of genocide" which should in turn be simply renamed but, well, yeah, that's not anything I can do much about.
Don't deflect. It's your choice to use the word the way you do; the UN certainly isn't forcing you to do its sinister bidding.
That said, it'd be easy to get pictures of bombed neighbourhoods in Gaza and of the general misery that its inhabitants have to deal with. There's no snow, no, but it still sucks.
There are several other things missing from the picture besides snow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Israel has had nuclear warheads for a very, very long time. If Israel actually were genocidal (i.e. if you weren't grossly disingenuous or misinformed), there would be nothing where Lebanon is now.
Yet, Israel has never taken the opportunity. What would happen if Hamas or Hezbollah were to acquire nuclear weapons? There is only one serious answer, I'm afraid.
People complaining about the USA supporting Israel tend to display a very one-dimensional and warped view of the state of world affairs. Besides being the only place in the ME where people (men and women) have a vote that actually counts, Israel is far from just a military ally of the US. Israel is the US's ally in academics, scientific research, political ideals, and a whole lot else that makes all of our lives better. Israel publishes more books in a year than the entire Islamic world put together, by orders of magnitude. The amount of money Israel reinvests back into the US economy in terms of IP and science is significant.
Let's get real. If we're going to talk about who is actually genocidal in the ME, we don't have to look very hard to tell that it's the Islamic states. Every Friday you will hear, during morning prayers in Tehran, marg bar amrika, marg bar israel, marg bar ingilis. (Death to ~). It may be fun to do this armchair grandstanding about the death of civilians (who Islamic combatants -- who are technically themselves civilians as Hezbollah and Hamas are not official government-sanctioned militaries, obviously -- hide amongst as a grand testament to who between themselves and the Israeli military is actually more moral, if you think about it), but it is also breathtakingly ignorant.
Don't deflect. It's your choice to use the word the way you do; the UN certainly isn't forcing you to do its sinister bidding.
THIS. I can't emphatically agree with BS enough on this. you don't choose the word because its what the UN legally defines the word as. You choose the word because it infuses your side with a whole heck of a lot of emotions and images that are not tied to the "legal definition."
Any attempt to say you aren't is quite frankly a bold faced lie on your part and you know it.
Yet, Israel has never taken the opportunity. What would happen if Hamas or Hezbollah were to acquire nuclear weapons? There is only one serious answer, I'm afraid.
And? Is anyone arguing that violence perpetrated by Hezbollah is alright in any sense?
People complaining about the USA supporting Israel tend to display a very one-dimensional and warped view of the state of world affairs. Besides being the only place in the ME where people (men and women) have a vote that actually counts, Israel is far from just a military ally of the US. Israel is the US's ally in academics, scientific research, political ideals, and a whole lot else that makes all of our lives better. Israel publishes more books in a year than the entire Islamic world put together, by orders of magnitude. The amount of money Israel reinvests back into the US economy in terms of IP and science is significant.
Let's get real. If we're going to talk about who is actually genocidal in the ME, we don't have to look very hard to tell that it's the Islamic states.
I'm sure many Palestinians would settle with a two state solution. It is the Israelis that keep expanding their borders and seem to not be able to reconcile their existence with Palestine, even though it is not their land to begin with.
Every Friday you will hear, during morning prayers in Tehran, marg bar amrika, marg bar israel, marg bar ingilis. (Death to ~).
Violence is bad on either side.
It may be fun to do this armchair grandstanding about the death of civilians (who Islamic combatants -- who are technically themselves civilians as Hezbollah and Hamas are not official government-sanctioned militaries, obviously -- hide amongst as a grand testament to who between themselves and the Israeli military is actually more moral, if you think about it), but it is also breathtakingly ignorant.
The entire world (except the US) criticized Israel for the 2006 Lebanon War. Claiming militants were interspersed with civilians does not make it right to kill civilians. Add this on top of the Israeli apartheid-like domestic policy and you have an immoral regime.
Let's get real. If we're going to talk about who is actually genocidal in the ME, we don't have to look very hard to tell that it's the Islamic states.
This sort of sweeping generalization is so misguided it's not even funny, and it's a recipe for a social and diplomatic catastrophe. There are many Islamic states that are peaceful and valuable allies for the U.S. They're all the ones who don't get any screen time in the news, and for this reason some people seem to forget they exist and believe All The Arabs Are Out To Kill Everyone Else.
I'm not surprised the rest of your post makes similar faulty generalizations about everyone who's arguing the opposite of you.
This sort of sweeping generalization is so misguided it's not even funny, and it's a recipe for a social and diplomatic catastrophe. There are many Islamic states that are peaceful and valuable allies for the U.S. They're all the ones who don't get any screen time in the news, and for this reason some people seem to forget they exist and believe All The Arabs Are Out To Kill Everyone Else.
Karbonaut, fair enough and I suppose I made the mistake of assuming it can go without being said that I was not making a global generalization. I am too used to this topic being re-hashed on other forums so that by the time I get around to posting the various terms are quite clear. I do want to add, though, that if you're thinking of places like Indonesia, things are getting worse there in terms of human rights and the influence of shariah law and it appears they'll continue to get worse before they get better. It's really quite a sad state of affairs.
I'm not surprised the rest of your post makes similar faulty generalizations about everyone who's arguing the opposite of you.
Well, in response I invite you to address the actual points I made rather than make quite a sweeping generalization of your own.
--
Khorn
If Israel ever shot a nuclear missile in the middle east the radiation would kill it as well.
That's false. Different nuclear weapons have different yields, but this is all neither here nor there. The point was that Israel's military capability is far beyond what they have actually felt compelled to exercise, precisely because they are not "genocidal" and because they put far more effort into curbing civilian casualties than many are led to think.
As for your points regarding "ancestral homes," that is a messy argument to get into because nobody has ever respected anyone's "claim to land," including the western world, and if you're serious about it then I suggest you give your land back to the Iroquois, or Celts, or whoever's land you happen to have inherited. It's just not a serious line of argument so let's tackle this in more sensible ways.
I want to point out that the Islamic states surrounding the region of Palestine never showed any interest in granting any of the Palestinians political asylum, nor sponsoring a nation akin to Israel, or anything of the sort. The Palestinians, I am sorry to say, are a perpetual scapegoat, and the surrounding Islamic states like it that way. The fact that they are spat on by their neighbors is a big part of the reason that organizations such as Hamas can entrench themselves in the population, by offering the aid that those people need. It is very much akin to the tactics of missionaries -- provide aid, then convert. Hamas provides aid, then sets up artillery and coerces the populace into shielding them and certainly not interfering. This, like I said, is a testament to even Hamas's (and Hezbollah's -- they do likewise) acknowledgment that Israel cares far more about the lives of Palestinian non-combatants than do the Islamic militant groups, who aim to maximize civilian casualties when Israel is inevitably forced to retaliate. I submit that the people to blame are the Islamic militant groups who put Palestinian and Lebanese non-combatants in these grave situations, and not the Israeli military that is forced to choose between letting its citizens suffer missile fire and go after Hamas/Hezbollah at the risk of incurring civilian casualties. The Israeli military does what it can, including calling homes that it expects to be in the line of fire and telling the residents to get the heck out of dodge, dropping leaflets to warn people of impending military incursions, and so forth, but the results are of course still far from ideal -- they are realistic. It does not help that the militants often force non-combatants to remain by force, adding to the list of deaths. I hold the militants culpable for this.
If Israel ever shot a nuclear missile in the middle east the radiation would kill it as well.Israel showed it's humanitarian spirit in Gaza and it's brutal decades long occupation and colonization of another country.If anyone disagrees with that point please point out to me were i am wrong.If anyone thinks that Palestine can be resurrected from the scraps of land that are left then they are deluding themselves.Fact is that although it is not outright genocide it is the steady expulsion of a people from their ancestral home , and how anyone can disagree with this i don't know.As far as equality is concerned live as a Palestinian i think you shall change your mind pretty quickly .Give it 20 or 30 years i severely doubt if any Palestinian will live in was formerly their land....
After each period (full stop in the Queen's English) there is a double space. Like this. Failure to follow this convention renders posts significantly more difficult to read.
"Fact is that although it is not outright genocide it is the steady expulsion of a people from their ancestral home" <-- expulsion by a people returning to their ancestral home.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You have failed to explain how shelling an inhabited urban area with white phosphorus and cluster bombs constitutes "responding with due force" rather than an all-out atrocity, and an unlawful one at that. The fact that the IDF constantly tries to lie about and impede investigations of their use of force in Gaza and other instances is telling that they have trouble demonstrating their acts are "responding with due force", so how you can try to make that argument without batting an eyelash and without presenting anything more than your opinion to back it is completely baffling.
I mean, did you *look* at the graphic I posted?
Not only you're wrong, but you *don't* have an argument yourself. All you're responding with is your opinion. I know you're a unique snowflake and what you have to say is very interesting, but it still constitutes a poor defense for Israel breaking international law and killing a bunch of people.
Your double standard is almost as terrible as your grammar and spelling. Fatah and specially Hamas are groups of radical extremists and you despise them for that. Yet you don't seem to think it is bad at all that the IDF doesn't hold itself to a higher standard than that of fanatical thugs.
I know IDF military presence is necessary in Palestine. If you read the links I posted, the problem is that they go *much* farther than that and they have basically killed the Palestinian economy and marginalized their people.
Yeah, please explain to me how the 400 children killed in the Gaza offensive brought that upon themselves. Or the children killed by snipers in 2005 while they were playing soccer brought it upon themselves. Or how Mounir's sister and her sons brought this upon themselves.
It's not like there is another group to support. The crudeness of the conflict has all but wiped out the possibility of a pro-Israel party emerging in Palestine. Israel is responsible for half of that. The crippling isolation of the Palestinian economy has made it so that now all the economical power in the country is concentrated in the hands of Hamas. Israel is responsible for *all* of that.
That's funny, how is stealing land, ostracizing and abusing civilians and committing war crimes part of these "strict rules" of safety you speak of?
So now the UN is in bed with Hamas too. Nice. What do you propose the UN does?
You would not be the best person to make that judgement as you have proven time and again in this thread your beliefs are out of touch.
Actually, you don't have the "right" to use "any means you deem necessary" in that case. The law is quite explicit as to what you're allowed to do (and if you're seriously implying you could respond to someone throwing rocks at your window by shooting him... I hope you don't try to put that theory to the test because you'll wind up in prison faster than you can snap your fingers). Same as is the case for a military offensive. The IDF doesn't care to play along with the law, though.
Nice scapegoat. Even if Hamas wasn't using human shield, cluster bombing and shelling an urban area can and *will* cause a ****load of casualties. Moreover since Israel's massive-scale bombing started at a time children in Gaza were going home from school...
Perfectly avoidable consequences. Don't cluster bomb civilians. Don't fire white phosphorus shells at them. How difficult is that?
Did you bother to read any of the links I have posted in this thread...?
And how do you propose they do that? Since Israel's genius move of smothering the Palestinian economy with their blockades, their wall and their illegal settlements, the only people who have any money in Palestine are Hamas. While morally admirable, for any Palestinian to oppose Hamas at present would be totally foolish and most probably suicidal. Before there is the least chance to purge radicalism from Palestine, Israel has to backpedal on all its ****head moves.
Talk about blowing things way out of proportion. You make it sound as if the average Israeli regularly has their house bombed by Hamas. Suicide attacks have slowed to all but a halt and Hamas fires the occasional ineffectual Qassam rocket at Sderot. You're hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by an act of terror here. Israel isn't one big war zone, other than certain areas along the border with Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank you're safe.
Of course they are. As I said, Mystery25 is making a huge mess of things and isn't doing a favor to either side of this debate.
I can't think of any proper comparison for the current societal situation in Israel. There's certainly widespread enmity on both sides towards the other but it can be at least partially justified. There's also the issue of the language barrier which can partly explain the higher fail rate for the matriculation exams among Arab students along with cultural mores that put less emphasis on higher education. Actual proactive discrimination isn't nearly as rampant as you make it sound. You'll hear about the occasional hate crime perpetrated by a Jew or Arab, but few are actively trying to oppress Israeli Arabs. The main culprits are far-right politicians such as the head of the Yisrael Beiteinu ("Israel is our home" :-/) party Avigdor Lieberman and head of Shas, Eli Yishai who at every turn try to denounce Israel's Arab population and deny them their rights. Thankfully said leaders wield *relatively* little power compared to the more moderate parties in the Knesset.
Israel may be the de facto ruling power in the occupied territories but the Palestinian Authority rules there de jure. So long as the Palestinian Authority does not recognize Israel's right to exist, Israel cannot be expected to treat the occupied territories as anything but such, and as with *all* occupations come stringent security policies that deny people their rights.
The IDF can't be put entirely to blame here. Hamas employed deplorable tactics during the operation, literally using children as meat shields with the dual purpose of defending themselves and inciting even more anger against Israel. The reason children, the elderly and the sick became casualties is because Hamas stored weapons and hid operatives in civilian homes, hospitals and mosques. Before every military strike that might endanger civilians, fliers warning people to flee were air-dropped en masse and SMSess were sent out. Hamas encouraged civilians, perhaps forcibly (I'm not knowledgeable enough regarding this aspect of Operation Cast Lead) to stay and risk their lives to ensure the safety of Hamas militants. Considering the population density of Gaza city, the guerrilla tactics employed by Hamas, and the relative small percentage of the population composed of said militants. However much it pains me to say so, having 50% of the operation's casualties be Hamas fighters is still a relative success.
Regarding the issue of the use of inhumane weapons during Operation Cast Lead. Although not widespread, military officials faced harsh obloquy for their senseless use of phosphorous bombs and I believe a committee to clear up those issues is still ongoing.
The settlers face opprobrium by a large segment of the population but I feel the term "genocide" is extremely hyperbolic. Although there are definitely violations of international law going on over there, there is no systematic ongoing murder of Palestinians. The settlers themselves are hardly the most sympathetic lot but in no way are they supporting any kind of genocide. According to Genocide Watch, Israel hardly qualifies as a perpetrator of genocide against the Palestinian people. There is certainly a large degree of "Classification" with the Palestinians being deemed "them" but I really don't see any of the other signs in the current paradigm.
We aren't in the 19th century anymore, and sadly, civilian deaths are par for the course in any military action. For example, estimates place the civilian death toll of the entire Iraq War at approximately 100,000 adding that many deaths go undocumented and that the figure given might be lower than reality, some even going so far as to give an estimate of 600,000. This is 2 to 10 times the number of the estimated Iraqi insurgent death toll (55,000). Both the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the IDF don't seem like the most objective sources for death counts so I'll average the two. Approximately 600 militants and police officers were killed in Operation Cast Lead while 612 civilians were killed. This is a 50% civilian death rate as opposed to 64% to 91% for the Iraq war. One must also not forget that Iraq is far less dense than Gaza (71.2 people/sq. km as opposed to 4,118 people/sq. km).
Going back to Operation Cast Lead, of course the IDF wasn't being "kind" or "gracious". Their main objective is to defend Israel from organizations such as Hamas and civilian deaths are an unfortunate byproduct of war *both* sides are to blame for. Hamas could have minimized civilian deaths by keeping weapon stockpiles out of schools, hospitals and private homes; instead they chose to use their citizens as meat shields.
Regarding the broad definition of what a "militant is. The definition used by the IDF that includes men over the age of 15 is oddly appropriate when said 15 year olds are loaded with M12s and grenades. It's very saddening that such a situation where a 15 year old is pushed into combat even exists. Extremist Muslim organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah encourage youths to rise up in violent rebellion. Sadly, even a child with a gun can kill.
According to the U.N. Genocide is any act with the intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical [sic], racial or religious group". There's a *huge* difference between denying an ethnic group rights as part of a belligerent occupation such as in the West Bank and "destroying their cultural institution".
The West Bank is currently in a stable situation and living conditions there are certainly passable. The main issue is that with Israel being the British Mandate of Palestine's successor state, the West Bank is technically Israeli land. However, Israel isn't interested in annexing the West Bank as that would entail giving 2.2 million Palestinians citizenship and rights which leaves the West Bank in limbo being quasi-illegally occupied. Jordan isn't interested in annexing the West Bank either and their leaders have gone on the record stating that should control of the West Bank shift to Jordan, they would just institute a similar military occupation in place of Israel. The only seemingly feasible solution is for the West Bank to gain sovereignty which is sadly currently only a pipe dream.
Gaza is in an entirely different situation. It's led by an illegitimate terror organization and there really isn't anyone to talk to over there. Living conditions are certainly abhorrent and residents of the strip have little to no rights, but all of this is a product of Hamas's regime. Israel *isn't* currently occupying the Gaza Strip and has little to no bearing on the conditions therein aside from marching in and forcibly removing Hamas (it's an endless cycle where military action strengthens Hamas's platform and leaves Gaza off where it started). The fact that Israel has to supply electricity, food, water, medical assistance and other supplies to an entity that is actively trying to eradicate it is ludicrous.
Wow, what an amazing response, "hey you know you are wrong right?".
*Every* city has issues with squatters. Putting a racism spin on that story doesn't change the fact that the houses to be demolished were built illegally on property not zoned for residences. The addition of a shopping mall and tourist attractions in East Jerusalem could greatly benefit Palestinian shop-owners and residents. Also, I really don't see the connection to Lieberman's Plan. I assure you the aforementioned East Jerusalemites are being relocated to somewhere else in East Jerusalem as opposed to a different country.
Not all Palestinians are squatters; those ones specifically are. Squatting is occupying land you do not legally own. Like it or not, that specific lot was purchased by Jews.
I've also been reading up on the US's military-industrial complex. The US is backing up Israel because there is money to be made. This isn't a national decision, this is a decision made by corporations, and their decisions are enforced by lobbyists as well as politicians with monitary interests in mind. The US is one of the largest suppliers of weapons in the world. You think Palestinians are fighting with non-American weapons? How convenient it is that most of the Western media is depicting them with rusty AKs and RPG-7s. Most of the middle-east is supplied with american and european weaponry, and it finds its way down to the hands of hamas, fatah and the plo, they get them in afghanistan, iraq, iran and lebanon too, don't be fooled. You think they make m4 knock-offs in china? Look at any photos and you'll see arabs carrying american weapons... hmmm
Divide and
conquermake a profit.That's one facet of the issue. Nevermind political and religious implications. It's all very multi-faceted and rather complicated. Hard to have a conversation about in general, gives me headaches when I talk to people about it.
WUBRG
Isn't the primary weapon used there the AK-47 or a variant?
Why would the Palestinian courts have any bearing on this issue when Jerusalem in its entirety is currently under Israeli rule?
Don't get too Marxist and ignore cultural reasons as well. It's a trap a number of academics fall into with the whole neo-Marxist interpretation of history as their sole sine qua non. It's a wonderful part of thinking to understand the world by, but a good analytical framework needs multiple ways to look at conflicts.
The military complex does exist, but so does sheer idealogues coupled with foolishness with theories that are based on overly simple theories based on how nation-states function like domino theory.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
lol. where do I begin?
Which is why state religions are such a terribly bad idea. It's all one kind of oppression. It links all three of these cycles of hatred and retaliation into each other, so that even if one of them starts winding down, it'll be revved back up by one of the others. Perpetual Motion machines may be impossible, but Israel and Palestine seem to have successfully invented the Perpetual Hate machine.
Indeed. It has been singularly unhelpful.
You're quite right. But that state of affairs has concluded. It's madness for us to continue to consider Israel that necessary to our needs in the region. The alliance is costing us more than we gain from it.
Sadly, peacefulness is not high on the list of western sensibilities. At least, not as high as wearing a suit, shaving, and speaking good English is. Our priorities are very childish.
I wasn't aware of this until several years ago myself, but you are right. There is a (in my opinion, revolting) belief among many Evangelical protestants that the eschatological purpose of the Jews is to pave the way for the end of the world (after which, naturally, they will be consigned to hell for not being Christians). How generous and loving!
Of course, I was raised Catholic, so my attitudes towards Christianity are colored by this. But I have always found these death-mongering rapturist viewpoints, and the so-called "Jews for Jesus", horribly offensive and tasteless. It's a pity they weigh so heavily in our politics.
Well, a.) I'd put more of the blame on the UK than on the UN, and b.) I've never understood, either, why any Jew would rather live in the "Holy Land" surrounded by violence and hatred rather than live in what I consider the true homeland of the Jews, the country that has more Jews living in it than any other, where they enjoy full equality and, in fact, a powerful political lobby, and are in no direct physical danger: the good ol' U.S. of A.
The company you keep reflects upon you. Just today I found out that a guy I know was abusing and mistreating his girlfriend, also a friend of mine. He's no longer a friend of mine, I'm done with him, and I've let all our mutual friends know. I don't understand how a nation can perceive itself as a moral entity and not exhibit the same discrimination in how it picks its friends. If Israel's actions are immoral, how can a moral nation ally itself with Israel? In my opinion what we should be discussing is: what is the moral character of the nation of Israel? Does it have a moral character we can be proud to associate with, or not? My answer is currently a provisional "no", but I'm willing to listen to arguments pro, if any can be made sensibly and without appeal to racism or jingoism against the Palestinians.
Well, it's true that separation of church and state in America is very weak, and falls far short of our Jeffersonian ideals. But you go too far in saying there is NONE. Yes, religionism is the strongest and most pervasive prejudice in America today, but it is nothing compared to the nightmare it would be if the protestant Christian majority in this country was able to establish itself as a bona fide state religion. THEN you'd see some real oppression.
In Israel's favor, I will credit them for not wasting any breath on ideals of secularism that they don't truly believe in.
Typical error I see in these debates: conflating the Palestinian people, who are just civilian men, women, and children trying to get by, make a living, and care for their loved ones, with the armed terrorists living in their midst. This would be similar to calling everyone in West Virginia a member of a violent white supremacist organization just because *some* are. It's unfair and succeeds only in proving your own poor grasp of the situation.
What, praytell, is just about Israel's "cause"? I'm not saying there can't be anything just about it, I'd just like to know what you see as "just" about what they do.
Or could it be because the offers were simply unacceptable? Hmm... I will agree that Arafat in particular seemed to be very much an obstructionist and more interested in furthering his own political agenda rather than a peace process. Then again, Sharon and Netanyahu were also similarly obstructionist. There are many on both sides who stand to lose much if there is ever peace.
Identity, a feeling of homeland, and biblical roots do not justify the expulsion of an indigenous population and causing them to become homeless. And there is already (though it could be said that in 1948, there was not) a place where Jews can escape persecution: right here in the U.S.A. So I don't see why we need to support their "escaping persecution" by living, at great military expense, in the middle of a warzone rather than, say, anywhere in these great 50 states. Just because it's a special piece of land to them? Fine for them, but I don't consider it special land, so can my tax money not go to pay for their fixation on it, please?
Agreed. Besides, there are far more ethnicities and culture groups to provide sovereignty to each of them. The world would be nothing but countries the size of Lichtenstein if we did that, and dealing with all the borders and petty kings would make international trade impossible. It would be a return to the Dark Ages.
The course of the future is towards amalgamation and away from balkanization. Possibly, even, towards unified democratic world government. As such I have zero sympathy for groups who want to break away from us and have their own private clubhouse where they can kick out anyone who is different. Our future is to live together, to learn to love what each of us brings to society, and in the long run, to hybridize those unique strands into a new whole.
Or, in the words of the most beautiful phrase in our constitution, "To form a more perfect union."
lol. Dark Angel gets extra points for being funny and right at the same time.
I think your fellow-debater was trying to claim that the war in which Israel conquered the lands in question was a defensive one. I personally don't understand why, in a defensive war, one would conquer anything more than what one owned when the war began, but... Still, I don't particularly agree that the war was entirely defensive in the first place. And to that extent, I agree with you.
lol. This IS Mystery you're talking to... I think he'd probably feel we're better off without "Taxachusetts" (j/k Mystery, I know you love us liberals, we <3 you too! )
Well, as the nation responsible for the Trail of Tears, I'm not sure nations in the region want to hear what we have to say about that. We lack the moral authority to condescend. :/
Feel free to disagree, but the comparison is made very frequently. You'd do better to state your opposition and make your case, than to try to write it off.
le sigh... I think you're wasting your breath, but good luck with this.
Agreed on the "collective punishment". I think it is possible that the people of Israel are not collectively aware that they are essentially engaging in genocidal acts. But this did not excuse the Germans. And that is the irony that sickens me and saddens me to tears. :/
Indeed. One can have any variety of opinions on Hamas as an organization (personally, I dislike them), but to try to claim they are illegitimate is nonsense. Like it or not, they won. This is the peril of introducing people to the concept of democracy. Sometimes - GASP - they will elect someone you do not like!
(this is why the typical U.S. response has been "replace the person they 'mistakenly' elected with the person they 'should' have elected".)
My take on the situation: I think the U.S. should grant an exception in its immigration laws such that any citizen of Israel may immigrate here and start a new life. The ones who don't and stubbornly insist on continuing to live surrounded by the people they've pissed off, well, to them I say bon chance, mes amis. I don't see why we need to defend them when they don't want to be part of our society; if some strip of dirt (well, I'm told it's very "fertile" dirt, but to me, dirt is dirt) where they believe some mythological figure once walked is more important to them than the safety of their families and children, then I'll never be able to understand them.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
Just wanted to point out that what you quote as being narrow has three consecutive sentences saying that there's many other issues.
I am just completely baffled. No matter what Israel does, we continue to give them money. They can literally do anything they want and the US response will always be "we remain strong allies, here have some more money." They must be laughing at us over there.
So what exactly is Israel doing wrong here? Missile defense is a pretty uncontentiously good goal, especially for the country that's probably suffered the most missile attacks in history.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If Israel really wanted to "raze Lebanon to the ground", Hezbollah's missiles certainly wouldn't stop them from doing it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"Genocide" is such a fun word, isn't it? Makes people jump and squirm and call to mind images of naked emaciated corpses piled like cordwood as the snow of the harsh Polish winter drifts against them. Such intoxicating power over people's emotions and imagination, all from a mere three syllables! I don't know why we don't use it more often. "Hey, did you catch the game last night? It was a complete genocide!"
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Do you have an actual point?
It's not like Tuss hasn't provided several arguments why he believes the IDF's aggressiveness can be called genocidal. I have reservations about adopting that point of view, but you're making it sound like he uses the term purely for shock value while he has explained why he does it several times in this thread and yet others before it.
It is true that the IDF, US Army and other invading armed forces around the world incur in abominable killings of civilians by continuing to deploy high-end offensive weapons loaded with uncontrollable destructive firepower such as Merkava and Abrams tanks and Spectre gunships against an enemy completely embedded in an urban landscape. This should have been internationally banned a long time ago.
It's not what it is being used for, it's that we continue to give them money. Money is money, whether it is used for building hospitals or missile defense systems. The fact remains that we are supporting what I consider an immoral regime. And it just baffles me to no end that they keep getting money no matter what they do. They give a big middle finger to the US with more settlements in Gaza, and we turn around and give them more money. Not only that, we give them money in a way that we do for no other country. We give aid to them in a way that maximizes how much they get at our expense, and we even allow them to use that money to purchase weapons from their own companies. Other countries have to buy from the US.
The special treatment wouldn't make sense even if Israel did pay attention to our wishes. But the fact that they can antagonize us and continue with the types of actions they have undertaken in past years and we STILL give them better aid than anyone else makes no sense.
Yeah, that's kind of why the legal definition sucks.
Don't deflect. It's your choice to use the word the way you do; the UN certainly isn't forcing you to do its sinister bidding.
There are several other things missing from the picture besides snow.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yet, Israel has never taken the opportunity. What would happen if Hamas or Hezbollah were to acquire nuclear weapons? There is only one serious answer, I'm afraid.
People complaining about the USA supporting Israel tend to display a very one-dimensional and warped view of the state of world affairs. Besides being the only place in the ME where people (men and women) have a vote that actually counts, Israel is far from just a military ally of the US. Israel is the US's ally in academics, scientific research, political ideals, and a whole lot else that makes all of our lives better. Israel publishes more books in a year than the entire Islamic world put together, by orders of magnitude. The amount of money Israel reinvests back into the US economy in terms of IP and science is significant.
Let's get real. If we're going to talk about who is actually genocidal in the ME, we don't have to look very hard to tell that it's the Islamic states. Every Friday you will hear, during morning prayers in Tehran, marg bar amrika, marg bar israel, marg bar ingilis. (Death to ~). It may be fun to do this armchair grandstanding about the death of civilians (who Islamic combatants -- who are technically themselves civilians as Hezbollah and Hamas are not official government-sanctioned militaries, obviously -- hide amongst as a grand testament to who between themselves and the Israeli military is actually more moral, if you think about it), but it is also breathtakingly ignorant.
THIS. I can't emphatically agree with BS enough on this. you don't choose the word because its what the UN legally defines the word as. You choose the word because it infuses your side with a whole heck of a lot of emotions and images that are not tied to the "legal definition."
Any attempt to say you aren't is quite frankly a bold faced lie on your part and you know it.
And? Is anyone arguing that violence perpetrated by Hezbollah is alright in any sense?
I suggest you read the link I posted at the beginning of this thread which argues Israel does not deserve the support the US gives it.
I'm sure many Palestinians would settle with a two state solution. It is the Israelis that keep expanding their borders and seem to not be able to reconcile their existence with Palestine, even though it is not their land to begin with.
Violence is bad on either side.
The entire world (except the US) criticized Israel for the 2006 Lebanon War. Claiming militants were interspersed with civilians does not make it right to kill civilians. Add this on top of the Israeli apartheid-like domestic policy and you have an immoral regime.
I'm not surprised the rest of your post makes similar faulty generalizations about everyone who's arguing the opposite of you.
Well, in response I invite you to address the actual points I made rather than make quite a sweeping generalization of your own.
--
Khorn That's false. Different nuclear weapons have different yields, but this is all neither here nor there. The point was that Israel's military capability is far beyond what they have actually felt compelled to exercise, precisely because they are not "genocidal" and because they put far more effort into curbing civilian casualties than many are led to think.
As for your points regarding "ancestral homes," that is a messy argument to get into because nobody has ever respected anyone's "claim to land," including the western world, and if you're serious about it then I suggest you give your land back to the Iroquois, or Celts, or whoever's land you happen to have inherited. It's just not a serious line of argument so let's tackle this in more sensible ways.
I want to point out that the Islamic states surrounding the region of Palestine never showed any interest in granting any of the Palestinians political asylum, nor sponsoring a nation akin to Israel, or anything of the sort. The Palestinians, I am sorry to say, are a perpetual scapegoat, and the surrounding Islamic states like it that way. The fact that they are spat on by their neighbors is a big part of the reason that organizations such as Hamas can entrench themselves in the population, by offering the aid that those people need. It is very much akin to the tactics of missionaries -- provide aid, then convert. Hamas provides aid, then sets up artillery and coerces the populace into shielding them and certainly not interfering. This, like I said, is a testament to even Hamas's (and Hezbollah's -- they do likewise) acknowledgment that Israel cares far more about the lives of Palestinian non-combatants than do the Islamic militant groups, who aim to maximize civilian casualties when Israel is inevitably forced to retaliate. I submit that the people to blame are the Islamic militant groups who put Palestinian and Lebanese non-combatants in these grave situations, and not the Israeli military that is forced to choose between letting its citizens suffer missile fire and go after Hamas/Hezbollah at the risk of incurring civilian casualties. The Israeli military does what it can, including calling homes that it expects to be in the line of fire and telling the residents to get the heck out of dodge, dropping leaflets to warn people of impending military incursions, and so forth, but the results are of course still far from ideal -- they are realistic. It does not help that the militants often force non-combatants to remain by force, adding to the list of deaths. I hold the militants culpable for this.
After each period (full stop in the Queen's English) there is a double space. Like this. Failure to follow this convention renders posts significantly more difficult to read.
"Fact is that although it is not outright genocide it is the steady expulsion of a people from their ancestral home" <-- expulsion by a people returning to their ancestral home.