Of course there is a particularly chilling historical precedent of an occupying nation forcing people out of their homes and into impoverished areas, surrounded by walls, controlling access to food, medicine, work etc.
One that the people of Israel should be extremely familiar with.
Strangely enough no-one ever blamed the people in the Warsaw ghetto for it being burned to the ground when they used violent resistance against their oppressors. No-one said they shouldn't have fought futilely against a professional army and it was their own fault they got shot.
To be clear, I am not saying Israel is as bad as the Nazis, or that they are going to try and set up extermination camps etc.
But their behaviour with regards to forcing Palestinians out of their homes to make way for Israeli settlements, their construction of the walls, their reprisals for attacks etc. is incredibly similar to that of the Nazi government prior to the Final Solution.
Difference is the Polish Jews in Warsaw weren't detonating suicide vests and going on stabbing sprees targeting German civilians. So this is a false equivalence and you bloody well know it.
Don't act like building walls to protect civilians from violence is something unique to Israel. Belfast had "peace" walls to stop Protestants and Catholics from killing each other.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Difference is the Polish Jews in Warsaw weren't detonating suicide vests and going on stabbing sprees targeting German civilians. So this is a false equivalence and you bloody well know it.
Don't act like building walls to protect civilians from violence is something unique to Israel. Belfast had "peace" walls to stop Protestants and Catholics from killing each other.
That is a false difference. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising was in a span of 3 years. Palestinians didn't start off suicide bombing and stabbing people either. The first Intifada was relatively peaceful. Only the second Intifada saw the rise of suicide bombing. Who knows that the Jews would have done if they had been locked up in the ghetto for 50+ years. That is a long time to be treated as a doormat. You're comparing events transpiring in three years time to at least two generations of violations by Israel.
I go to Israel quite frequently (though it's been quite a few years I don't cross into the West Bank because then Israeli immigration gives you all sorts of crap) and cognitive dissonance once this issue turns up (and it does turn up, you can't really ignore it) is something like I haven't seen anywhere else in the world. Best case scenario is Palestinians deserve what's coming for them because they brought it on themselves, worst case is they don't qualify for the human card.
This is sadly true. I have an Israeli colleague and once, when discussing Palestinian riots he shrugged and said "You can't reason with them. Violence is the only language they understand."
When I asked when Israel had actually tried another language the subject was changed pretty quickly.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Civilians who are throwing bombs and trying to tear down and breach a border wall. Get it right.
Sweet.
I'll be round your house in the next week or two. Build a way halfway across your bedroom, decide what resources, and how much thereof you're allowed, and threaten you with violence if you so much as raise your voice at me.
I go to Israel quite frequently (though it's been quite a few years I don't cross into the West Bank because then Israeli immigration gives you all sorts of crap) and cognitive dissonance once this issue turns up (and it does turn up, you can't really ignore it) is something like I haven't seen anywhere else in the world. Best case scenario is Palestinians deserve what's coming for them because they brought it on themselves, worst case is they don't qualify for the human card.
This is sadly true. I have an Israeli colleague and once, when discussing Palestinian riots he shrugged and said "You can't reason with them. Violence is the only language they understand."
When I asked when Israel had actually tried another language the subject was changed pretty quickly.
There has been international negotiations for decades and none has come of it bar a few smaller gains like the PA being founded. However that is a mess mired in corruption etc.
Recently the US cut off there funding to the UN mission there dramatically. Things are a multi layered, maze like mess equal to most middle Eastern problems.
Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.
It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.
I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.
It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.
I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.
True but psychologically.
You have Israel. Who where driven from home city, home land. Scattered and for next 2000+ years, expelled, malligned and more by many countries they inhabited. They faced genocide and loss many times.
They survive of the most focused and orgonised genocides in human history.
They then regain there ainciant homeland, now for first time they have a secure hold on land and the strengh to defend it.
So.. When someone's going on about driving them into the sea, destruction, there's a huge collective history behind it and a single fact there not going back there.
So they going to yield now when they have stood and won against 5-1 odds in war and hold and defend there most holy sites, now in possession for first time in 2000 years?
You wonder why they fight?
And how much help bar for political gain has there Arab "Brothers" truly gave them?
A cease fire is automatic. Stop trying to attack the wall - they will stop shooting you. Come on man. Nothing I said is even remotely racist. Hamas is Racist.
Not attacking the wall didn't stop the IDF from murdering the protesters before, why would it now? Maybe you missed this, but the murdering started BEFORE the wall attacking started. Israel's justification has jumped around quite a bit: first it was that all the people they killed were terrorists. Then they killed a bunch of journalists covering it who were provably not terrorists, so then it was that all the people they were killed were violent rioters, but then footage of them shooting people just standing there kept coming out, so now it's to protect the wall separating Gaza and Israel.
And, yes, you did. Maybe you don't grasp WHY it's racist, but you did.
Xenomancers wrote: . It was a world war where we were attacked on our homeland. Intervention here was self-defense.
One, after FDR set it up so that Japan would attack the US, even having studies done to formulate a foreign policy that would ensure this.
Two: actually you were attacked in foreign countries that you just happened to have conquered. Hawaii, The Philippines, etc.
Xenomancers wrote: .What racist fantasy? Am I imagining that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and all its people?
So do a lot of people, but the thing is that there's something called 'proportionality' even in warfare. Calling for your enemies deaths is not the same as actually committing a war crime. (This is discussed at length at the trial of 'Panzer' Meyer)
The difference here is while Hamas has blown a lot of smoke, it's the IDF committing actual crimes.
Wait you just said FDR set up Japan attacking the US. That's pants on head crazy chemtrails moon landings were fake crap.
Its not an uncommon belief though, the carriers all being at sea in December is could be seen as suspicious in hindsight. Economic policy was pushing the Japanese Empire closer to having to do something.
I'm not going to attack anyone for thinking that pearl was a setup. It could have been - though I really doubt it (I can think of a lot better ways to set up a war than letting a whole fleet sink). I attribute it to inexperienced operators and a general false sense of security that allowed it to happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.
It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.
I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.
I've asked this in another thread, but it really should go here:
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns?
I'm not so certain if any other nation would've handled that better...
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.
It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.
I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.
True but psychologically.
You have Israel. Who where driven from home city, home land. Scattered and for next 2000+ years, expelled, malligned and more by many countries they inhabited. They faced genocide and loss many times.
They survive of the most focused and orgonised genocides in human history.
They then regain there ainciant homeland, now for first time they have a secure hold on land and the strengh to defend it.
So.. When someone's going on about driving them into the sea, destruction, there's a huge collective history behind it and a single fact there not going back there.
So they going to yield now when they have stood and won against 5-1 odds in war and hold and defend there most holy sites, now in possession for first time in 2000 years?
You wonder why they fight?
And how much help bar for political gain has there Arab "Brothers" truly gave them?
The issue with this is that its pretty hard to go and claim that you have a right to a 'homeland' that you were driven from (which is debatable, a number of Jews have always lived in the region) 2000 years ago. Meanwhile they have driven off the people who's homeland it was not even a few decades ago. Following the homeland argument is going to lead to incredible bloodshed. As most of Europe and a good deal of Asia could invoke homeland and move over a few countries if we can stretch it back 2000 years.
As for the drive them into the sea rethoric. Its pretty tasteless, but don't forget that for most people in the region the Israelis are the invaders from the sea.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.
It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.
I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.
I've asked this in another thread, but it really should go here:
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns?
That's why there is a physical fence. You need non-concealeable equipment to get through that. Try to cut through several layers of heavy wire while tear-gassed and pelted with rubber bullets. It's not like the IDF lacks things like water cannons, and riot gear.
But just look at the footage, no protester got anywhere close to the actual fence (of which there are several, with buffer zones in between).
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, it won't get solved by everyone sitting on their hands and saying it won't get solved.
It will get solved even slower by people doing stuff like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and thereby enraging the Palestinians, who with some justification view East Jerusalem as their own capital city.
I think that both sides are at fault, but it's ridiculous for Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to claim it was necessary to shoot hundreds of Palestinians and that any other nation would have done worse.
I've asked this in another thread, but it really should go here:
What would you have those Israeli soldiers do when thousands of people march on the border, some armed, some not? What would you them do when you know that terrorists are certainly mixed in that crowd, people who’d gladly shoot or stab Israeli civilians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns?
I'm not so certain if any other nation would've handled that better...
Again, you just arrest the ones that break through. You have an army with tanks and everything against a few guys with improvised explosives in a civilian crowd.
And we have video of people being shot in the back, are they walking backwards towards the fence? Even journalists were killed, its hardly proportional when they don't seem to bother aiming. Saying they all want to cross is just misleading.
Disciple of Fate wrote: No, the Gauls didn't go this far north. The Gauls are pretty much French adjacent. Then we have the Belgicae who became sort of Belgium and up here we have a few Germanic tribes. Later those few tribes fell under the control of some Frankish and Viking influence but nobody really got displaced. It just blended together. Or not in the case of the Frisians who didn't mix and are still distinct in the north of our country, with a name going back to Roman times.
Funnily enough we might have some 'Gaul' in us, because Belgium and the Netherlands were once considered one region and when we struggled for independence in the 16th century a lot of what we now call Belgians fled north to what became the Netherlands.
Also most 'white' people have some neaderthal in them, they went extinct due to a number of enviromental factors but they had snu snu with our European ancestors beforehand.
The modern Dutch, who are descendants of the Franks (who themselves were a confederation of a number of Germanic tribes that lived in what is now the Southern and Eastern Netherlands and the adjacent regions of Germany and Belgium) did 'steal' (as in take by force) most of the northern and western Netherlands from the Frisians, who were a Germanic tribe (descended from the Anglo-Saxons) that like other Saxon tribes weren't so keen on integrating with the Franks, largely because the Franks were christians while the Frisians and other Saxon tribes remained pagan (except for those Anglo-Saxons who went to Britain). They fought for their land and their faith, but the Franks were much larger and just conquered their land (although not without some wars that saw the Franks getting close to defeat) and forcefully integrated the Frisians. The Frisians remain a distinct people to this day, but only in the Frisian heartlands. Frisia used to be much larger than just the small part that remains today. It stretched along the North Sea coast from Belgium to Denmark, and in most of that area the Frisians were either driven out by the Franks or forcefully converted and assimilated into the immigrant Frankish population.
The Netherlands does have a remarkably peaceful early history for a European country, but it is not without its conquests and land-stealing. So yeah, if we are going the 'give land back to the original inhabitants' route, please give back most of the Netherlands to the Frisians. Approximate map of early medieval Frisia:
Spoiler:
Now in relation to the Palestine-Israel conflict, I think it is useless to discuss who came first and who has more right to the land. The Israelis are there now and they are not going to leave again. That is just fact. Even if the Palestinians were given back some of their land and their own state, it would most likely still exist in a state of perpetual conflict with Israel over all kinds of issues. IMO, the only real solution is that Palestinians and Israelis have to learn to accept one another and live together in a single state. Basically, Israel should stop being a 'Jewish state' (that is racist) and in its place should come a multicultural, democratic state. An unrealistic idea maybe, but I just don't see any other lasting solution.
Disciple of Fate wrote: No, the Gauls didn't go this far north. The Gauls are pretty much French adjacent. Then we have the Belgicae who became sort of Belgium and up here we have a few Germanic tribes. Later those few tribes fell under the control of some Frankish and Viking influence but nobody really got displaced. It just blended together. Or not in the case of the Frisians who didn't mix and are still distinct in the north of our country, with a name going back to Roman times.
Funnily enough we might have some 'Gaul' in us, because Belgium and the Netherlands were once considered one region and when we struggled for independence in the 16th century a lot of what we now call Belgians fled north to what became the Netherlands.
Also most 'white' people have some neaderthal in them, they went extinct due to a number of enviromental factors but they had snu snu with our European ancestors beforehand.
The modern Dutch, who are descendants of the Franks (who themselves were a confederation of a number of Germanic tribes that lived in what is now the Southern and Eastern Netherlands and the adjacent regions of Germany and Belgium) did 'steal' (as in take by force) most of the northern and western Netherlands from the Frisians, who were a Germanic tribe (descended from the Anglo-Saxons) that like other Saxon tribes weren't so keen on integrating with the Franks, largely because the Franks were christians while the Frisians and other Saxon tribes remained pagan (except for those Anglo-Saxons who went to Britain). They fought for their land and their faith, but the Franks were much larger and just conquered their land (although not without some wars that saw the Franks getting close to defeat) and forcefully integrated the Frisians. The Frisians remain a distinct people to this day, but only in the Frisian heartlands. Frisia used to be much larger than just the small part that remains today. It stretched along the North Sea coast from Belgium to Denmark, and in most of that area the Frisians were either driven out by the Franks or forcefully converted and assimilated into the immigrant Frankish population.
The Netherlands does have a remarkably peaceful early history for a European country, but it is not without its conquests and land-stealing. So yeah, if we are going the 'give land back to the original inhabitants' route, please give back most of the Netherlands to the Frisians. Approximate map of early medieval Frisia:
Spoiler:
Well that isn't entirely true. Frisians aren't Anglo Saxon descendent, as the Frisians where already there before Anglo Saxon became the name for the groups crossing to Britain. Also traditionally the Frisian domains have gone back and forth but they still hold onto their core territory. They themselves aren't from the West of the Netherlands. They are from the north and conquered southwards after the Romans left, which is shown on your map. Most of the Netherlands does not belong to the Frisians as such, at most they could claim Groningen and a bit of Noord-Holland historically. Eventually we would become the Netherlands together. Most of the outer parts of Frisian culture were just merged in with new populations.
The Franks came into territory that was more or less occupied by the tribes that had been around since the Romans. Yet to say they displaced or stole it is a bit much, as the Frankish population that moved here was not overly large (certainly not on the scale of Israeli immigration).
Now in relation to the Palestine-Israel conflict, I think it is useless to discuss who came first and who has more right to the land. The Israelis are there now and they are not going to leave again. That is just fact. Even if the Palestinians were given back some of their land and their own state, it would most likely still exist in a state of perpetual conflict with Israel over all kinds of issues. IMO, the only real solution is that Palestinians and Israelis have to learn to accept one another and live together in a single state. Basically, Israel should stop being a 'Jewish state' (that is racist) and in its place should come a multicultural, democratic state. An unrealistic idea maybe, but I just don't see any other lasting solution.
It is, neither part is going to leave which is pretty clear. But they still have to allow the other to live instead of having a yearly Israeli landgrab. Israel won't ever allow a single state and would rather put up with a two state solution, 'luckily' for Israel there is no need to compromise however.
Disciple of Fate wrote: No, the Gauls didn't go this far north. The Gauls are pretty much French adjacent. Then we have the Belgicae who became sort of Belgium and up here we have a few Germanic tribes. Later those few tribes fell under the control of some Frankish and Viking influence but nobody really got displaced. It just blended together. Or not in the case of the Frisians who didn't mix and are still distinct in the north of our country, with a name going back to Roman times.
Funnily enough we might have some 'Gaul' in us, because Belgium and the Netherlands were once considered one region and when we struggled for independence in the 16th century a lot of what we now call Belgians fled north to what became the Netherlands.
Also most 'white' people have some neaderthal in them, they went extinct due to a number of enviromental factors but they had snu snu with our European ancestors beforehand.
The modern Dutch, who are descendants of the Franks (who themselves were a confederation of a number of Germanic tribes that lived in what is now the Southern and Eastern Netherlands and the adjacent regions of Germany and Belgium) did 'steal' (as in take by force) most of the northern and western Netherlands from the Frisians, who were a Germanic tribe (descended from the Anglo-Saxons) that like other Saxon tribes weren't so keen on integrating with the Franks, largely because the Franks were christians while the Frisians and other Saxon tribes remained pagan (except for those Anglo-Saxons who went to Britain). They fought for their land and their faith, but the Franks were much larger and just conquered their land (although not without some wars that saw the Franks getting close to defeat) and forcefully integrated the Frisians. The Frisians remain a distinct people to this day, but only in the Frisian heartlands. Frisia used to be much larger than just the small part that remains today. It stretched along the North Sea coast from Belgium to Denmark, and in most of that area the Frisians were either driven out by the Franks or forcefully converted and assimilated into the immigrant Frankish population.
The Netherlands does have a remarkably peaceful early history for a European country, but it is not without its conquests and land-stealing. So yeah, if we are going the 'give land back to the original inhabitants' route, please give back most of the Netherlands to the Frisians. Approximate map of early medieval Frisia:
Spoiler:
Well that isn't entirely true. Frisians aren't Anglo Saxon descendent, as the Frisians where already there before Anglo Saxon became the name for the groups crossing to Britain. Also traditionally the Frisian domains have gone back and forth but they still hold onto their core territory. They themselves aren't from the West of the Netherlands. They are from the north and conquered southwards after the Romans left, which is shown on your map. Most of the Netherlands does not belong to the Frisians as such, at most they could claim Groningen and a bit of Noord-Holland historically. Eventually we would become the Netherlands together. Most of the outer parts of Frisian culture were just merged in with new populations.
The Franks came into territory that was more or less occupied by the tribes that had been around since the Romans. Yet to say they displaced or stole it is a bit much, as the Frankish population that moved here was not overly large (certainly not on the scale of Israeli immigration).
There have actually been two distinct Frisian peoples in history. The original Frisians (Frisii in Roman sources) moved out of their traditional lands during the early Migration period, as they were forced to leave due to a series of unprecedented marine transgressions and were resettled within the borders of the Roman Empire, mostly in the province of Gallia Belgica and in present-day Kent. Centuries later, the water had receded again and the Angles and Saxons, who at the time lived in northern Germany were looking to expand. The virtually empty lands of Frisia were an obvious choice, and a good springboard towards England. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons who settled Frisia and remained there (a lot of them appear to have moved on to England) became known as Frisians themselves, after the name of the land they lived in. Modern Frisians are actually descended from these Anglo-Saxon settlers, not from the ancient Frisii (don't tell any Frisians I said this though, they might to become angry). We have a lot of evidence for this. We know medieval Frisians spoke Anglo-Saxon (this is recorded in written sources), and linguistically modern Frisian is still very closely related to English, which is another language descended from Anglo-Saxon. Besides, in archaeology we see the material culture we associate with the ancient Frisians disappear at some point, without any material culture taking their place or traces of human habitation for hundreds of years. And then the whole region suddenly gets flooded with Anglo-Saxon material culture (they had very distinctive pottery and jewelry), virtually the same material culture we also find in the Anglo-Saxon homelands and in Britain. There is some evidence for continuity of habitation at two or three sites from Roman times to Medieval times, but it is very clear that only a very small original population remained in Frisia when the Anglo-Saxons moved in en-masse, and that most of the land was empty.
But obviously, any Frisian claims on the Netherlands are kinda silly. The Frisians have been fully integrated in the Netherlands, Friesland was even one of the founding provinces of the Netherlands, and one of the most powerful and active in the 80 years war. It is just an example that no country or people hasn't 'stolen' its land at some point, including even the Dutch.
Now in relation to the Palestine-Israel conflict, I think it is useless to discuss who came first and who has more right to the land. The Israelis are there now and they are not going to leave again. That is just fact. Even if the Palestinians were given back some of their land and their own state, it would most likely still exist in a state of perpetual conflict with Israel over all kinds of issues. IMO, the only real solution is that Palestinians and Israelis have to learn to accept one another and live together in a single state. Basically, Israel should stop being a 'Jewish state' (that is racist) and in its place should come a multicultural, democratic state. An unrealistic idea maybe, but I just don't see any other lasting solution.
It is, neither part is going to leave which is pretty clear. But they still have to allow the other to live instead of having a yearly Israeli landgrab. Israel won't ever allow a single state and would rather put up with a two state solution, 'luckily' for Israel there is no need to compromise however.
Luckily for Israel, unfortunately for the Palestinians.
Iron_Captain wrote: There have actually been two distinct Frisian peoples in history. The original Frisians (Frisii in Roman sources) moved out of their traditional lands during the early Migration period, as they were forced to leave due to a series of unprecedented marine transgressions and were resettled within the borders of the Roman Empire, mostly in the province of Gallia Belgica and in present-day Kent. Centuries later, the water had receded again and the Angles and Saxons, who at the time lived in northern Germany were looking to expand. The virtually empty lands of Frisia were an obvious choice, and a good springboard towards England. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons who settled Frisia and remained there (a lot of them appear to have moved on to England) became known as Frisians themselves, after the name of the land they lived in. Modern Frisians are actually descended from these Anglo-Saxon settlers, not from the ancient Frisii (don't tell any Frisians I said this though, they might to become angry). We have a lot of evidence for this. We know medieval Frisians spoke Anglo-Saxon (this is recorded in written sources), and linguistically modern Frisian is still very closely related to English, which is another language descended from Anglo-Saxon. Besides, in archaeology we see the material culture we associate with the ancient Frisians disappear at some point, without any material culture taking their place or traces of human habitation for hundreds of years. And then the whole region suddenly gets flooded with Anglo-Saxon material culture (they had very distinctive pottery and jewelry), virtually the same material culture we also find in the Anglo-Saxon homelands and in Britain. There is some evidence for continuity of habitation at two or three sites from Roman times to Medieval times, but it is very clear that only a very small original population remained in Frisia when the Anglo-Saxons moved in en-masse, and that most of the land was empty.
But obviously, any Frisian claims on the Netherlands are kinda silly. The Frisians have been fully integrated in the Netherlands, Friesland was even one of the founding provinces of the Netherlands, and one of the most powerful and active in the 80 years war. It is just an example that no country or people hasn't 'stolen' its land at some point, including even the Dutch.
Sorry for going off-topic, by the way.
True, but not all the orginal inhabitants up and left. And it likely wasn't densely populated to begin with. The next Germanic tribe assimilated the remaining people left there. If anything there isn't a great claim for anyone as it all tended to be mixed in this area. I think the argument that our history has had stolen land on the scale of the US or Israel is a bit much. Large scale deportation didn't happen that often in European history, at least not in our own Dutch backyard as opposed to the colonies. Its not a very strong case is what I'm saying.
A cease fire is automatic. Stop trying to attack the wall - they will stop shooting you. Come on man. Nothing I said is even remotely racist. Hamas is Racist.
Not attacking the wall didn't stop the IDF from murdering the protesters before, why would it now? Maybe you missed this, but the murdering started BEFORE the wall attacking started. Israel's justification has jumped around quite a bit: first it was that all the people they killed were terrorists. Then they killed a bunch of journalists covering it who were provably not terrorists, so then it was that all the people they were killed were violent rioters, but then footage of them shooting people just standing there kept coming out, so now it's to protect the wall separating Gaza and Israel.
And, yes, you did. Maybe you don't grasp WHY it's racist, but you did.
Xenomancers wrote: . It was a world war where we were attacked on our homeland. Intervention here was self-defense.
One, after FDR set it up so that Japan would attack the US, even having studies done to formulate a foreign policy that would ensure this.
Two: actually you were attacked in foreign countries that you just happened to have conquered. Hawaii, The Philippines, etc.
Xenomancers wrote: .What racist fantasy? Am I imagining that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and all its people?
So do a lot of people, but the thing is that there's something called 'proportionality' even in warfare. Calling for your enemies deaths is not the same as actually committing a war crime. (This is discussed at length at the trial of 'Panzer' Meyer)
The difference here is while Hamas has blown a lot of smoke, it's the IDF committing actual crimes.
Wait you just said FDR set up Japan attacking the US. That's pants on head crazy chemtrails moon landings were fake crap.
Its not an uncommon belief though, the carriers all being at sea in December is could be seen as suspicious in hindsight. Economic policy was pushing the Japanese Empire closer to having to do something.
I'm not going to attack anyone for thinking that pearl was a setup. It could have been - though I really doubt it (I can think of a lot better ways to set up a war than letting a whole fleet sink). I attribute it to inexperienced operators and a general false sense of security that allowed it to happen.
I do believe in the saying "never ascribe to malice what is better explained with incompetence" but if it was a setup (possible even if highly improbable) the loss of hulls was not nearly as catastrophic as it could have been.
That is true - They could use a sonic or microwave crowd dispersing device.
That's what the UN should do - provide to tools to break these crowds without killing them. Right now I am sure Israel is happy to utilize the tools they have without paying for expensive new tech in all their boarder units.
So the UN would have to buy a rich country the tools they need to stop comitting gross human right violations while poor people continue to suffer from disease and starvation in this world?
Xenomancers wrote: That is true - They could use a sonic or microwave crowd dispersing device.
That's what the UN should do - provide to tools to break these crowds without killing them. Right now I am sure Israel is happy to utilize the tools they have without paying for expensive new tech in all their boarder units.
Israeli police and IDF are quite able to use non-lethal means whenever it's citizens involved.
This is a really complicated subject and certainly has enough blame to be spread around on all sides, from those within the region and outside of it. While I don't support everything Israel does, and what they are essentially doing is apartheid, you certainly can't put all the blame on them. The truth is, no one in the region really wants the Palestinians either. Not Jordon, not Egypt. And whatever support they do get, is really more about sticking it to the jews having a Jewish country located within the arab dominated middle east. But even that is changing as many of the surrounding countries now have good relations with Israel.
And its ridiculous to argue about who was there first. The jews have been there far far long enough to have a say in how they govern themselves. Where do people expect them to go? Back to Egypt? Never going to happen. And their migration to Palestine was a bloody affair but by no means unique. Everyone's done it. Then the Romans came in and scattered them around Europe. After the events of WWII, if I were Jewish and living in the region, I would have wanted the same thing and fought for it.
The problem today is really just Israel acting racist and not including the Palestinians in the political process. And what they are doing in Gaza should very well be a crime.
But you certainly can't say the Palestinians are innocent here. It wasn't too long ago they were launching rockets from their backyards and tuning into CNN to see where they landed. Obviously that's going to bring some retaliation. The Israelis shooting missiles into apartment buildings and killing innocent people is also the same thing. There is a cycle of violence that's been going on for 2000 years. Trying to isolate one instance in a void and pointing fingers is silly. The truth is, if you are dumb enough to throw rocks and fire bombs at soldiers armed with guns, you deserve to be shot. Common sense tells you that you will be.
I am not saying they shouldn't protest or fight. They very well will have to. The ownership of territory goes to the guy who has the means to control it. its no different than Crimea, South China Sea, the Falklands, or any other disputed area. Its going to have to be sorted out one way or another, so if there isn't going to be a diplomatic one, and I don't see there ever being one, then there is going to have to be a violent one. But with that, blaming the Israelis for excessive force is dumb. If the Palestinians had the means, they would be doing the same to the Israelis.
Tune back to this channel 50 years from now and we'll be having the same discussion.
But you certainly can't say the Palestinians are innocent here. It wasn't too long ago they were launching rockets from their backyards and tuning into CNN to see where they landed. Obviously that's going to bring some retaliation. The Israelis shooting missiles into apartment buildings and killing innocent people is also the same thing. There is a cycle of violence that's been going on for 2000 years.
Not really. Under Ottoman rule Jews were better treated than in European countries at the time. Which really ain't much, but rules out exceptionalism.
It took the first mass immigrations to the holy land (and the collapse of the Ottoman system) for the first conflicts to arise.
Problem with the comparison is that one is clearly a terrorist organization, while the people launching missiles into appartment blocks get treated like an actual state and not held accountable for the most part.
Also you don't deserve to be shot according to the law. Again, US protests must be bloody if law enforcement just opens up at every protests where stuff gets thrown.
And while it is similar to Crimea, neither the Falklands or the SCS really belong in that list because of entirely different circumstances.
I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.
If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.
Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.
The ancestral argument holds about as much water as my leaky bladder does these days.
Take Britain as a example. Named by the Romans, the Romans lived there for 400 years, and many of their roads and monuments, including a bloody great big wall, are still here in our landscape.
But I've yet to see the Italian government put in a claim for lost property and assets and a desire to return to the land of their ancestors.
I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.
If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.
Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.
Broadly speaking, US police dont respond to rock throwing by killing 60 people and injuring thousands more
I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.
If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.
Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.
Mortars and RPGs? A bit dramatic? You could make that argument for every violent riot, yet it still doesn't end up a bloody massacre each time. Not everyone is as rational as you are, but then again you haven't been in a gak situation for most of your life as a second class citizen with no future, so apples and oranges.
So we should apply excessive force in every conflict? Frazzled is right with his nuke them argument?
I am sorry, are we talking about the same people here? The ones that were launching rockets into Israel not too long ago? Or another group of people?
Quit trying to isolate and judge each individual action and pointing the blame. This has been one continuous fight for the last 2000 years and will continue for the next 2000 years no matter where the US Embassy is.
I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.
If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.
Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.
Mortars and RPGs? A bit dramatic? You could make that argument for every violent riot, yet it still doesn't end up a bloody massacre each time. Not everyone is as rational as you are, but then again you haven't been in a gak situation for most of your life as a second class citizen with no future, so apples and oranges.
So we should apply excessive force in every conflict? Frazzled is right with his nuke them argument?
Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.
As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.
Xenomancers wrote: That is true - They could use a sonic or microwave crowd dispersing device.
That's what the UN should do - provide to tools to break these crowds without killing them. Right now I am sure Israel is happy to utilize the tools they have without paying for expensive new tech in all their boarder units.
Israeli police and IDF are quite able to use non-lethal means whenever it's citizens involved.
Subjects get another kind of treatment, though.
Water cannons would not be effective here - truck mounted water cannons have an effective range of about 25 meters - which is throwing range for a grenade (the idea is not to endanger yourself) - they would also have to go over onto the other side of the wall to use them (not ideal). You end up providing drinking water for the riot too (not ideal). They could mount them directly on the wall - but this would be a very expensive endeavor - they'd still have to get tons of water to repel these rioters. There are lots of much more effective methods to disperse crowds without causing any harm. Microwave emitors with a certain frequency can make a crowd of 1000 people feel like they are on fire - but they will never actually burn - that's what I would probably go for in this situation if I was on the Israeli border protection team.
I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.
If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.
Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.
Broadly speaking, US police dont respond to rock throwing by killing 60 people and injuring thousands more
Indeed. And they shouldn't. Nor should any police (or military) force. Some people here need to look up the word 'disproportional' in the dictionary. If someone bloodies your nose in a bar brawl and you respond by grabbing your shotgun and blasting his head off, you are going to jail for murder, despite the fact that the guy hit you. If some rioters throw rocks at you, you'd use water cannons or other non-lethal means to disperse them, not rifles and machine guns. Israel perfectly understands this when it is angry Jews who are throwing rocks. But when an angry Palestinian kid throws a rock he gets riddled with bullets. Israel is easily the most racist state since WW2. Apartheid South Africa has many similarities to Israel, but it wasn't anywhere near this bad.
Vaktathi wrote: Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.
As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.
I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for millennia.
I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.
If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.
Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.
Broadly speaking, US police dont respond to rock throwing by killing 60 people and injuring thousands more
Indeed. And they shouldn't. Nor should any police (or military) force. Some people here need to look up the word 'disproportional' in the dictionary. If someone bloodies your nose in a bar brawl and you respond by grabbing your shotgun and blasting his head off, you are going to jail for murder, despite the fact that the guy hit you. If some rioters throw rocks at you, you'd use water cannons or other non-lethal means to disperse them, not rifles and machine guns. Israel perfectly understands this when it is angry Jews who are throwing rocks. But when an angry Palestinian kid throws a rock he gets riddled with bullets. Israel is easily the most racist state since WW2. Apartheid South Africa has many similarities to Israel, but it wasn't anywhere near this bad.
Yes but what about when they start throwing grenades?
Vaktathi wrote: Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.
As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.
I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for centuries.
Not really. Under the Ottoman Empire, Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully for many centuries. The Muslim Ottomans treated Jews better than most Christian states did, and they even allowed some Jewish migration to the Holy Land (leading to the establishment of Zionist enclaves there in the late 19th century). Jewish-Muslim violence only started in the late 19th/early 20th century with the fall of the Ottomans and the rise of Zionism and Arab nationalism.
Yes but what about when they start throwing grenades?
So far as I know, no IDF soldier or Israeli policeman has ever been injured by a grenade during Palestinian protests. It is a potential threat that is spun way out of proportion by the IDF propaganda machine. You can't just open fire on a crowd because some of them might otherwise throw grenades. So, unless it is like the entire crowd of hundreds or thousands of people throwing grenades at you, you should still use exclusively non-lethal means to disperse them. The occasional improvised explosive isn't enough of a threat to warrant live fire.
I am sorry, are we talking about the same people here? The ones that were launching rockets into Israel not too long ago? Or another group of people?
Quit trying to isolate and judge each individual action and pointing the blame. This has been one continuous fight for the last 2000 years and will continue for the next 2000 years no matter where the US Embassy is.
We are, not all Palestinians are Hamas. Answer the question, should we have been better of nuking Vietnam, Afghanistan amd Iraq by following your excessive force logic through?
Its impressive to say its been 2000 years, as Islam hasn't been around for that long, let alone what would become Palestine.
Vaktathi wrote: Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.
As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.
I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for millennia.
aside from the occasional civil unrest, this really isnt true. Primarily because, for most of the last two thousand years, the Jewish population was essentially negligible or nonexistent. Islam did not exist when the old nation of Israel was obliterated and by the Romans. The conflicts in the region over the last two thousand years were Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Muslim conflicts.
During most of the Ottoman era, the Jewish population of Palestine hoveres around 2-5%. When the British mandate in Palestine began in 1920, out of an estimated population of seven hundred thousand, only a bit over ten percent were Jewish, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those having immigrated to Palestine since 1880.
Thats why this isnt a millenia old issue. It is a relatively new issue, created by an immigrant European population displacing the native Arab population.
Vaktathi wrote: Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.
As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.
I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for millennia.
aside from the occasional civil unrest, this really isnt true. Primarily because, for most of the last two thousand years, the Jewish population was essentially negligible or nonexistent. Islam did not exist when the old nation of Israel was obliterated and by the Romans. The conflicts in the region over the last two thousand years were Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Muslim conflicts.
During most of the Ottoman era, the Jewish population of Palestine hoveres around 2-5%. When the British mandate in Palestine began in 1920, out of an estimated population of seven hundred thousand, only a bit over ten percent were Jewish, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those having immigrated to Palestine since 1880.
Thats why this isnt a millenia old issue. It is a relatively new issue, created by an immigrant European population displacing the native Arab population.
I didn't say they were fighting each other. This is one of the most violent places on earth - probably the worst place for humanitarian experiments like...can 2 cultures that hate each other at a religious fundamental level get along and share a city? No - they can't. Forcing them to try is just exacerbating the issue. Israel should have driven the populations into Jordan in Syria (you know the 2 countries that joined forces with the Palestinians to try and annihilate Israel and failed at it TWICE). That would have solved the problem. It would have saved thousands of lives. While it would have been terrible press at the time - the world could have stepped in and dealt with the humanitarian issue of refugees after a war (without even choosing a side).
Some of you don't seem familiar with 'the Bible.' read through it, and some additional history books. The exodus, the wars, Jericho, then the Romans coming in, etc. I mean, you guys keep going back to the Ottomans and its like you are neglecting to include hundreds of years of violence that neither side wants to forget.
Its hard to remember an event the living members themselves have been dead for just as long. Also lol, the Bible is one of the worst books to read on the region. Its a bunch of hearsay of actual history and made up stories. The Exodus for example is a pure myth.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."
I didn't say they should have killed them all. They certainly could have - they had the ability and didn't. Something that the Invading armies surely would have done. Something that Palestinian defenders are ever willing to talk about.
Well one group considers it the history of their race, so whether you want to consider what is in it or not is irrelevant. There are many that do.
Jewish/Arab relations didn't go downhill at the forming of Israel. Its been a cycle of violence for over 2000 years. When you grasp that, you'll begin to grasp how deep the issues go there. You don't seem to.
Israel has a no nonsense, violent government, but given what many of the founding members went through during the holocaust, then the numerous arab wars, its no wonder they are as warlike as they are. But you can't necessarily blame them for that. If I was surrounded by enemies for 70s years, and still have some on my border, I would be jaded too.
Its just a part of the world who's problems are not going to go away anytime soon. And like I said, it isn't like I agree with many of the things they do, but I can understand some of them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."
I didn't say they should have killed them all. They certainly could have - they had the ability and didn't. Something that the Invading armies surely would have done. Something that Palestinian defenders are ever willing to talk about.
Ethnically cleansing is more than just killing people. Yes the Palestinians talk about it, but are we going to 1984 condemn them for thought crimes? The Palestinians are in no position to carry out idle threats and the modern Israel has nukes, so unless people hate Israel so much they make the world end it hardly matters now.
The strange thing is, before Israel (and probably still today), most surrounding Arab countries strongly disliked Palestinians because they were (and are, I think) considered related to Jews.
KTG17 wrote: Well one group considers it the history of their race, so whether you want to consider what is in it or not is irrelevant. There are many that do.
Jewish/Arab relations didn't go downhill at the forming of Israel. Its been a cycle of violence for over 2000 years. When you grasp that, you'll begin to grasp how deep the issues go there. You don't seem to.
Israel has a no nonsense, violent government, but given what many of the founding members went through during the holocaust, then the numerous arab wars, its no wonder they are as warlike as they are. But you can't necessarily blame them for that. If I was surrounded by enemies for 70s years, and still have some on my border, I would be jaded too.
Its just a part of the world who's problems are not going to go away anytime soon. And like I said, it isn't like I agree with many of the things they do, but I can understand some of them.
And those people aren't living healthy lives. Extremely orthodox Jews are no better than the extremists on the other side of the fence.
And Jewish-Arab relations did go downhill. Believe it or not, but Muslim countries for a long time were more tolerant to Jews than Christian Europe was. I grasp the issues better it seems. Let me show you again how little you grasp it: the majority of the founding members did not live through the Holocaust. Most were living in Palestine at the time. Only a few partly witnessed the Holocaust.
Bran Dawri wrote: The strange thing is, before Israel (and probably still today), most surrounding Arab countries strongly disliked Palestinians because they were (and are, I think) considered related to Jews.
Yeah, there is plenty of room for them in Egypt, but Egypt wants nothing to do with them. Jordan gave up the West Bank, it doesn't want them either.
And Jewish-Arab relations did go downhill. Believe it or not, but Muslim countries for a long time were more tolerant to Jews than Christian Europe was. I grasp the issues better it seems. Let me show you again how little you grasp it: the majority of the founding members did not live through the Holocaust. Most were living in Palestine at the time. Only a few partly witnessed the Holocaust.
EVERYONE WITNESSED THE HOLOCAUST. They all saw it happen regardless of where they were. That is why they act the way they do and why Israel exists. It gives the Jews a place of their own since they didn't feel they had that in Europe, as well as a sanctuary. Europe isn't their homeland. They consider the area of Israel to be. And for some 2000 years it was.
The Palestine region was largely peaceful for four hundred years (barring an 8 year Egyptian invasion) until the 20th century and the advent of European immigration. It is clear that peace can absolutely reign in the region. The...monumentally buggered dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, largely by the UK and France, can be directly traced to most of the current conflicts in the Middle East today.
And Jewish-Arab relations did go downhill. Believe it or not, but Muslim countries for a long time were more tolerant to Jews than Christian Europe was. I grasp the issues better it seems. Let me show you again how little you grasp it: the majority of the founding members did not live through the Holocaust. Most were living in Palestine at the time. Only a few partly witnessed the Holocaust.
EVERYONE WITNESSED THE HOLOCAUST. They all saw it happen regardless of where they were. That is why they act the way they do and why Israel exists. It gives the Jews a place of their own since they didn't feel they had that in Europe, as well as a sanctuary. Europe isn't their homeland. They consider the area of Israel to be. And for some 2000 years it was.
That's a ridiculous moving of goalposts. You said what many went through during the Holocaust, which is simply untrue. And its not why Israel exists. The majority of its founding members were already involved in terrorism and creation of a Jewish state before the Holocaust.
And for 2000 years what was? The longest they could possibly claim it is 1500 years. Palestinians have lived there just as long. The homeland argument is pure bollocks.
Vaktathi wrote: Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.
As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.
I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for millennia.
aside from the occasional civil unrest, this really isnt true. Primarily because, for most of the last two thousand years, the Jewish population was essentially negligible or nonexistent. Islam did not exist when the old nation of Israel was obliterated and by the Romans. The conflicts in the region over the last two thousand years were Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Muslim conflicts.
During most of the Ottoman era, the Jewish population of Palestine hoveres around 2-5%. When the British mandate in Palestine began in 1920, out of an estimated population of seven hundred thousand, only a bit over ten percent were Jewish, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those having immigrated to Palestine since 1880.
Thats why this isnt a millenia old issue. It is a relatively new issue, created by an immigrant European population displacing the native Arab population.
Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!
Can't wait to tell everyone about being enlightened!
So now that we are all in agreement here, what can we do about those Israelis shooting up those poor Palestinians? I mean, I hope we're not just going to bang away on our keyboards back and forth here. Lets do something substantial for the peace process. There might even be a cash prize in the works if we pull it off!
Pressure our respective governments to not just let Israel get away with it? But some American posters would rather throw their hands in the air going "watcha gonna do?"
Well if you want to be serious. For everyone throwing their hands up going it is what it is, there is another voting for the Israel supporter. Having your government not being a blatant apologist is a start.
Well, not sure I want to put Israeli-Palestinians at the top of the reasons of why I vote for someone. Kinda got a bunch of domestic issues here I am a little more concerned about.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."
I didn't say they should have killed them all. They certainly could have - they had the ability and didn't. Something that the Invading armies surely would have done. Something that Palestinian defenders are ever willing to talk about.
Ethnically cleansing is more than just killing people. Yes the Palestinians talk about it, but are we going to 1984 condemn them for thought crimes? The Palestinians are in no position to carry out idle threats and the modern Israel has nukes, so unless people hate Israel so much they make the world end it hardly matters now.
Ethnic cleansing means murdering entire populations based on race. I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. While true - with the steps Israel has taken - the Palestinians are in no place to actually threaten Israel. However - if they took your suggestions leading up to now - there is no telling how many Israelis would be dead as a result of playing soft with the Palestinians. Who knows what kind of damage they could have done if they were free to move about - acquire weapons - and carry out their holy war. One can only speculate - I for one believe them when they say they want to destroy Israel.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."
I didn't say they should have killed them all. They certainly could have - they had the ability and didn't. Something that the Invading armies surely would have done. Something that Palestinian defenders are ever willing to talk about.
Ethnically cleansing is more than just killing people. Yes the Palestinians talk about it, but are we going to 1984 condemn them for thought crimes? The Palestinians are in no position to carry out idle threats and the modern Israel has nukes, so unless people hate Israel so much they make the world end it hardly matters now.
Ethnic cleansing means murdering entire populations based on race. I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. While true - with the steps Israel has taken - the Palestinians are in no place to actually threaten Israel. However - if they took your suggestions leading up to now - there is no telling how many Israelis would be dead as a result of playing soft with the Palestinians. Who knows what kind of damage they could have done if they were free to move about - acquire weapons - and carry out their holy war. One can only speculate - I for one believe them when they say they want to destroy Israel.
It doesn't just mean that in the law, not even in the dictionary:
Merriam Webster
Definition of ethnic cleansing
: the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity
You're openly suggesting ethnic cleansing as what they should have done. What suggestions? Not using your armies to massacre civilians? What did I suggest that would lead to more dead Israelis? I even said that they could use lethal force if justified, but so far the violence appears entirely disproportionate to the circumstances. There are clear rules for this, approaching an inanimate object should not carry the death sentence.
KTG17 wrote: Well one group considers it the history of their race, so whether you want to consider what is in it or not is irrelevant. There are many that do.
So two fairytale books based for the most part on the same oral history have overlapping claims on the same piece of land.
Who would have thought that.
That's why religion has no place in government. People tend to overreact when their sky fairy of choice tells them they've been chosen.
pgmason wrote: No, the term ethnic cleansing is also used to describe displacing entire populations out of a region, not just killing them.
That is not it's connotative meaning.
That doesn't matter, it is what it is by its legal defenition. Just like genocide by law does not have to include murder, you can commit genocide without directly murdering anyone.
KTG17 wrote: Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!
I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.
Aye. The palestinian leadership is either corrupt, ineffective or terrorists. The Israeli leadership isn't really much better but they have bigger guns and Uncle Sam at their back. If someone thinks it unfair that Israel is called out more often, well, they're said to be the only democracy in the region and they have all the power needed to do stuff - surely one should require that those with democracy and more power stick to a higher standard? Saying "they could have killed more, or wiped them out" when the IDF "only" kills 60 people that managed to hurt exactly zero Israeli is technically correct, but could they maybe have killed zero people instead? It would be 60 martyrs less for Hamas to rally people around if nothing else.
KTG17 wrote: Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!
I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.
Aye. The palestinian leadership is either corrupt, ineffective or terrorists. The Israeli leadership isn't really much better but they have bigger guns and Uncle Sam at their back. If someone thinks it unfair that Israel is called out more often, well, they're said to be the only democracy in the region and they have all the power needed to do stuff - surely one should require that those with democracy and more power stick to a higher standard? Saying "they could have killed more, or wiped them out" when the IDF "only" kills 60 people that managed to hurt exactly zero Israeli is technically correct, but could they maybe have killed zero people instead? It would be 60 martyrs less for Hamas to rally people around if nothing else.
And left a huge mess. If you leave, that doesn't mean you are suddenly not responsible for the mess you made anymore, nor does it absolve you of guilt. Quite the contrary. Britain's behaviour in this question is like a captain steering his ship into an iceberg, fleeing in the only lifeboat and then going 'Well, not my problem anymore!' Obviously, the situation has changed a lot since the British left, and in the present day there isn't much the British can do anymore, other than what any other government can do (pressuring both sides, encourage diplomacy etc.). But again, blaming Britain is fully justified.
KTG17 wrote: Well one group considers it the history of their race, so whether you want to consider what is in it or not is irrelevant. There are many that do.
So two fairytale books based for the most part on the same oral history have overlapping claims on the same piece of land.
Who would have thought that.
That's why religion has no place in government. People tend to overreact when their sky fairy of choice tells them they've been chosen.
If you call it fairytale books, that shows you understand nothing of religion and are really not qualified to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian question (or any question involving religion) in an intelligent manner. People tend to overreact as well when they are very convinced that the "sky fairy" that other people believe in is fake or wrong. Religion is extremely important to like 90% of the world population, and therefore religion naturally has a very important place in any government. Governments that try to get rid of religion generally historically have not been perceived very positively. Which may have to do with their nasty tendencies to kill millions of people for being religious.
KTG17 wrote: Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!
I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.
I still blame the British.
Woah Woah Woah, let's not be hasty now, I'm fairly sure the French were mostly to blame there, in fact we were hardly involved, not even on the same continent.
In fact it's probably 90% France's fault, we all know what they're like when it comes to treaties and things going to pot afterwards.
KTG17 wrote: Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!
I dont think that was anyone's point, rather that there really are no "good" guys.
I still blame the British.
Woah Woah Woah, let's not be hasty now, I'm fairly sure the French were mostly to blame there, in fact we were hardly involved, not even on the same continent.
In fact it's probably 90% France's fault, we all know what they're like when it comes to treaties and things going to pot afterwards.
If you call it fairytale books, that shows you understand nothing of religion and are really not qualified to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian question (or any question involving religion) in an intelligent manner.
Thanks for the ad hominem. Similarly I think that whoever puts religion higher than stuff such as property or other human rights is not qualified to be in any kind of position of power, but that's my personal belief.
I understand that religion is so important to some people that they're ready to inflict harm to others or themselves (to the point of death, if need be), plus some of the best historians of religion are atheists, so we'll have to disagree on that.
I've been to the all of the holy places spelled here out pure of historical intest (just like I've been to Yad Bashem and, being a wargamer, to Yad La-Shirom as well, I even have a pilgrim certificate). You can perfectly understand something and not agree with it, whoever tells you differently is just telling spiritual BS. Actually that's the purest, simplest rule of living in a society: be prepared that other people will think different and learn to live with that.
pgmason wrote: No, the term ethnic cleansing is also used to describe displacing entire populations out of a region, not just killing them.
That is not it's connotative meaning.
That doesn't matter, it is what it is by its legal defenition. Just like genocide by law does not have to include murder, you can commit genocide without directly murdering anyone.
The words common usage is far more important than is dictionary definition. 99% of people when they hear ethnic cleansing will first jump to the conclusion that you are talking about genocide. That makes it a poor word choice when talking about the subject I was talking about - but hey - it sounds a lot worse than what I was saying so I understand why you want to use it.
pgmason wrote: No, the term ethnic cleansing is also used to describe displacing entire populations out of a region, not just killing them.
That is not it's connotative meaning.
That doesn't matter, it is what it is by its legal defenition. Just like genocide by law does not have to include murder, you can commit genocide without directly murdering anyone.
The words common usage is far more important than is dictionary definition. 99% of people when they hear ethnic cleansing will first jump to the conclusion that you are talking about genocide. That makes it a poor word choice when talking about the subject I was talking about - but hey - it sounds a lot worse than what I was saying so I understand why you want to use it.
No it doesn't, what you said is literally that they should have ethnically cleansed better. It is what it is based on your words. You can squirm and argue on 99% of people. But 99% of people generally don't have more then a general clue on most subjects. You make it sound however you want to, just know you advocated that they should have driven out the Palestinians better and are trying to avoid admitting you said what you said, which is downright ethnic cleansing advocacy.
Xenomancers wrote: [Israel should have driven the populations into Jordan in Syria (you know the 2 countries that joined forces with the Palestinians to try and annihilate Israel and failed at it TWICE). That would have solved the problem.
Maybe it's common usage where you're from, but its definitely not everywhere. I've certainly only heard it used in the more broad category. The news is full of stories about ethnic cleansing of Rohingya people in Myanmar being forced over the border into Bangladesh for example. Maybe its a difference of US usage rather than UK usage, but what you're advocating definitely fits the definition of ethnic cleansing.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Isn't ethnic cleansing the openly admitted objective of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all of Israel's enemies?
True, and that is why we should always support Israel's survival. But we shouldn't just let them be monsters because the other side wants to be. One is actively engaging in horrible things, the other wishes it could. One is doing far more harm at the moment and should be held accountable as a Western ally.
Well we would all be dead if they actually tried so Iran might logically keep it mostly rethorical. Hamas and Hezbollah will never be a force that can take on the Israeli army, let alone invade and destroy Israel.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Isn't ethnic cleansing the openly admitted objective of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all of Israel's enemies?
True, and that is why we should always support Israel's survival. But we shouldn't just let them be monsters because the other side wants to be. One is actively engaging in horrible things, the other wishes it could. One is doing far more harm at the moment and should be held accluntable as a Western ally.
I agree. But I think it does go a long way to explain the Israeli mindset and motivations. When all your neighbouring countries have actively sought (and failed) to wage genocide against your people for the 70 years since your Nation was founded...it does tend to put power in the hands of the hardliners in your Government.
Israel has a siege mentality. Because it quite literally is under siege, and always has been, and so their attitude is that they should pre-empt any and all attacks on them with overwhelming force, and keep their neighbours weak.
KTG17 wrote: Held accountable as a western ally? Who cares who they are allied with? Would non-allies get a free pass?
The issue is that the US and the West do hold non-allies accountable. Haley called Iran's crackdown of protests a disgrace and said what boils down to security should not trump freedom and human rights. One year later she is praising Israel as proportional. Everybody sees this, its harmful to the US position in the world.
All of us. Israel has nuclear weapons and based on their history its a pretty safe bet they would take as many with them as they could. An invasion would be pretty suicidal.
KTG17 wrote: Held accountable as a western ally? Who cares who they are allied with? Would non-allies get a free pass?
The issue is that the US and the West do hold non-allies accountable. Haley called Iran's crackdown of protests a disgrace and said what boils down to security should not trump freedom and human rights. One year later she is praising Israel as proportional. Everybody sees this, its harmful to the US position in the world.
No its not. We've been supporting Israel doing crappy stuff for years. Nothing new there.
All of us. Israel has nuclear weapons and based on their history its a pretty safe bet they would take as many with them as they could. An invasion would be pretty suicidal.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Isn't ethnic cleansing the openly admitted objective of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all of Israel's enemies?
True, and that is why we should always support Israel's survival. But we shouldn't just let them be monsters because the other side wants to be. One is actively engaging in horrible things, the other wishes it could. One is doing far more harm at the moment and should be held accluntable as a Western ally.
I agree. But I think it does go a long way to explain the Israeli mindset and motivations. When all your neighbouring countries have actively sought (and failed) to wage genocide against your people for the 70 years since your Nation was founded...it does tend to put power in the hands of the hardliners in your Government.
Israel has a siege mentality. Because it quite literally is under siege, and always has been, and so their attitude is that they should pre-empt any and all attacks on them with overwhelming force, and keep their neighbours weak.
Yes, but the problem with people like Netanyahu is that they cynically gamble Israeli lives away to stay in power as hardliners. Israel is just turning it up to 11 every time and we all know it will just backfire in the long run because that's another generation growing up hating Israel.
The siege is also becoming a lot less pervasive. Egypt and Jordan are no longer very beligerent. Iraq as it once was is gone, Syria is terribly weakened and Lebanon is Lebanon. Almost everything they are doing now is wage wars on groups that live amongst civilian society and cause large amounts of civilian casualties. Israel won't face another country in the near future. For all the fears about Iran, Iran could not sustain an offensive war against Israel at the moment and with SA in Yemen and Syria it has no reason to take on a third conflict.
KTG17 wrote: Held accountable as a western ally? Who cares who they are allied with? Would non-allies get a free pass?
The issue is that the US and the West do hold non-allies accountable. Haley called Iran's crackdown of protests a disgrace and said what boils down to security should not trump freedom and human rights. One year later she is praising Israel as proportional. Everybody sees this, its harmful to the US position in the world.
No its not. We've been supporting Israel doing crappy stuff for years. Nothing new there.
Yes and unconditional support for Israel has been harming the international position of the US in the region for years.
Because an invasion of Israel might set of a nuclear war that could escalate beyond the region.
Uggh. No. The US, Russia, Europe, and China are not going to go all out nuclear war for because of a regional war in the middle east. Even if nukes were used. Lots of heightened concern and condemning, sure.
Yes and unconditional support for Israel has been harming the international position of the US in the region for years.
Uggh, No. Egypt, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. All close to the US. Syria, Lebanon, Iran, whoever else may not like it but I don't see us caring.
Yes they support the US for political gain. But honestly the US is paying for its support of Israel in international influence. You might not see it, but a lot of countries resent what Israel does and how the US lets them get away with it. The US is also undermining its own international system by ignoring it when Israel breaks it.
Meanwhile half the allied countries you list finance terror groups that also want to harm the US over its support of Israel. Hell, Bin Laden blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason behind 9/11.
Uggh. No. The US, Russia, Europe, and China are not going to go all out nuclear war for because of a regional war in the middle east. Even if nukes were used. Lots of heightened concern and condemning, sure.
That really depends on where those nukes are going to go. Lets say in 10 years from now Iran and SA develop them too. You're introducing a lot of unknown factors. Are the regional players going to contain their mutual suicide to just the region? Its risky for all of us, but then again nobody rational will put Israel on the spot.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You might not see it, but a lot of countries resent what Israel does and how the US lets them get away with it. The US is also undermining its own international system by ignoring it when Israel breaks it.
No, everyone works in their own self interest. The average person might resent the US when he isn't resenting his own government, but I can assure you its not bothering any of us here.
Hell, Bin Laden blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason behind 9/11.
No. No. No he did not. He might have said some anti-jewish things to galvanize support, but Israel had nothing to do with Bin Laden's motivation for 9/11 other than the fact that israel, along with the US, existed.
That really depends on where those nukes are going to go. Lets say in 10 years from now Iran and SA develop them too. You're introducing a lot of unknown factors. Are the regional players going to contain their mutual suicide to just the region? Its risky for all of us, but then again nobody rational will put Israel on the spot.
Well let's say in 10 years the Evil Lectroids from Planet 10 show up with anti-matter ray guns and give them out to everyone, saying 'enjoy' before waving goodbye. Then what?
In all seriousness Israel has no real fear on invasion for some time. Whey will wipe the floor of everyone in the region as they have in the past. If somehow the arabs were able to strangle Israel into a small last stand, then yes, Israel would unleash what nukes it had. But everyone knows that. No one is invading Israel.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You might not see it, but a lot of countries resent what Israel does and how the US lets them get away with it. The US is also undermining its own international system by ignoring it when Israel breaks it.
No, everyone works in their own self interest. The average person might resent the US when he isn't resenting his own government, but I can assure you its not bothering any of us here.
If that is what you want to believe then believe it. I can assure you it does harm the US indirectly.
Hell, Bin Laden blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason behind 9/11.
No. No. No he did not. He might have said some anti-jewish things to galvanize support, but Israel had nothing to do with Bin Laden's motivation for 9/11 other than the fact that israel, along with the US, existed.
So you think just the fact that a country exists is all the motivation you need? Why didn't the hit any other country then. He talked about motivation after it happened and US suport for Israel is an important point.
That really depends on where those nukes are going to go. Lets say in 10 years from now Iran and SA develop them too. You're introducing a lot of unknown factors. Are the regional players going to contain their mutual suicide to just the region? Its risky for all of us, but then again nobody rational will put Israel on the spot.
Well let's say in 10 years the Evil Lectroids from Planet 10 show up with anti-matter ray guns and give them out to everyone, saying 'enjoy' before waving goodbye. Then what?
In all seriousness Israel has no real fear on invasion for some time. Whey will wipe the floor of everyone in the region as they have in the past. If somehow the arabs were able to strangle Israel into a small last stand, then yes, Israel would unleash what nukes it had. But everyone knows that. No one is invading Israel.
Exactly, so that's my point. Israel has no reason to fear a fight for its existence. Yet they haven't stopped treating the Palestinians like that's the case. Israeli politics have become toxic and its bleeding into how they treat the Palestinians.
It not just the Israeli's fault. It takes two to tango. As we've been saying during their whole thread there is plenty of blame to go around, going back 1000s of years. You keep blowing that off, but it all plays a part. When you are raised by your parents and grandparents to mistrust and dislike the other side, its going to have an impact how you view them.
Find a way to undo that and you've solved half the problem.
Israel has only existed 70 years. It doesn't go back thousands of years. As for it takes two to tango, sure, but one is doing so with a bb gun and the other with a machine gun.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Israel has only existed 70 years. It doesn't go back thousands of years. As for it takes two to tango, sure, but one is doing so with a bb gun and the other with a machine gun.
Jewish people have existed in this land for thousands of years. For some of this time they were a minority - for some of this time they were even driven out and enslaved. Why do you deny this? Because it doesn't support your narrative that Israel is an evil land grabbing empire?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Israel has only existed 70 years. It doesn't go back thousands of years. As for it takes two to tango, sure, but one is doing so with a bb gun and the other with a machine gun.
Jewish people have existed in this land for thousands of years. For some of this time they were a minority - for some of this time they were even driven out and enslaved. Why do you deny this? Because it doesn't support your narrative that Israel is an evil land grabbing empire?
Because its incredibly offensive to just say Jewish=Israeli. For the longest time the Jewish population lived in relative harmony with the other and for a long time those living in Palestine were treated a lot better than those in Europe.
Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state. Hell, most of the founding members emigrated to Palestine in their lifetime with that goal. And again, I have no problem with Israel being a state or with the partition plan to found it. I have issues with them doing plainly illegal things like allowing the building of settlements or comitting war crimes. Palestinians are responsible for what Palestinians do and Israelis for what Israelis do, its as simple as that.
But that doesn't support your narrative as trying to paint me as someone who hates Israel.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You might not see it, but a lot of countries resent what Israel does and how the US lets them get away with it. The US is also undermining its own international system by ignoring it when Israel breaks it.
No, everyone works in their own self interest. The average person might resent the US when he isn't resenting his own government, but I can assure you its not bothering any of us here.
If that is what you want to believe then believe it. I can assure you it does harm the US indirectly.
Hell, Bin Laden blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason behind 9/11.
No. No. No he did not. He might have said some anti-jewish things to galvanize support, but Israel had nothing to do with Bin Laden's motivation for 9/11 other than the fact that israel, along with the US, existed.
So you think just the fact that a country exists is all the motivation you need? Why didn't the hit any other country then. He talked about motivation after it happened and US suport for Israel is an important point.
That really depends on where those nukes are going to go. Lets say in 10 years from now Iran and SA develop them too. You're introducing a lot of unknown factors. Are the regional players going to contain their mutual suicide to just the region? Its risky for all of us, but then again nobody rational will put Israel on the spot.
Well let's say in 10 years the Evil Lectroids from Planet 10 show up with anti-matter ray guns and give them out to everyone, saying 'enjoy' before waving goodbye. Then what?
In all seriousness Israel has no real fear on invasion for some time. Whey will wipe the floor of everyone in the region as they have in the past. If somehow the arabs were able to strangle Israel into a small last stand, then yes, Israel would unleash what nukes it had. But everyone knows that. No one is invading Israel.
Exactly, so that's my point. Israel has no reason to fear a fight for its existence. Yet they haven't stopped treating the Palestinians like that's the case. Israeli politics have become toxic and its bleeding into how they treat the Palestinians.
We if there programmes keep up... There not exactly backing off and more doubling down with ability to launch second strike capability.
Even if your strangled them and so... Therr submarines could bring armageddon even if they where destroyed by a future nuclear nation.
There not exactly going anywhere... And if they are alot are going with them. Its not worth triggering armageddon over the palastinian issue.
KTG17 wrote: It is not offense. Man what the hell. It is Israel. And its mostly populated with Jews. Israel is a Jewish state. We're generalizing. So what.
Because its an important distinction to make between Jews and Israel when talking about the history of the Israeli state.
Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.
And even if they were, it is still irrelevant. Living somewhere for thousands of years doesn't give you even the slightest right to the land, not anymore than all the other groups that have lived on the same land for thousands of years. In fact, a lot of modern Palestinians are descended of the exact same ancient Jewish people that modern Israeli Jews claim to descend from.
The Holy Land has never been an exclusively Jewish land, and the fact that Jews lived there thousand of years ago doesn't give all Jews worldwide a right to the land. Christians and Muslims could claim the Holy Land for exactly the same reasons, and Christians could in fact claim pretty much the entire world for that reason.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.
ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.
The Romans kicked many of them out of Palestine and sent them all over Europe! That is why they created Israel. It is about as close to a homeland as they can have, unless you want to go back to Egypt.
Man, what the hell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: And even if they were, it is still irrelevant. Living somewhere for thousands of years doesn't give you even the slightest right to the land, not anymore than all the other groups that have lived on the same land for thousands of years. In fact, a lot of modern Palestinians are descended of the exact same ancient Jewish people that modern Israeli Jews claim to descend from.
The Holy Land has never been an exclusively Jewish land, and the fact that Jews lived there thousand of years ago doesn't give all Jews worldwide a right to the land. Christians and Muslims could claim the Holy Land for exactly the same reasons, and Christians could in fact claim pretty much the entire world for that reason.
That's not my point! My earlier point was that if you can exert control over the land, its going to be yours. End of story. For the last few pages we're somehow trying to sort out if the Israelis are really Jews or if the Jews created Israel? Seriously this is getting so ridiculous its hard to follow. It doesn't matter is only 1% of the population of worldwide Jews was in Israeli at the time, that area WAS their homeland, and they took it back. End of story. Some Jews moved there, others didn't want anything to do with it. Either way, they, like everyone else, has years of pent up anger about all sorts of things that have happened over 1000s of years, especially in that area.
Not even sure what the hell I am arguing about anymore. God knows if I started this thread, some mod would have shut it down by now.
Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state. Hell, most of the founding members emigrated to Palestine in their lifetime with that goal.
I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate. You have the initial population set up from Jews fleeing Russian pogroms in the nineteenth century. You have the 60,000 odd Jews who emigrated to Palestine from Germany in the 1930's (for reasons primarily unrelated to setting up a state). You had the hundred odd thousand who began emigrating immediately post-WW2 (check out the Cyprus camps), many of whom again, were not exactly doing it out of a desire to set up a state as much as it was to ditch the ongoing European troubles (to put it mildly). Then after Israel was officially established, you had 140,000 Holocaust survivors alone migrating there who hadn't been able to until the British blockade lifted.
For a region that only had about 600,000 people in 1910, and barely double that by the time of Israel (including Arabs), these aren't small numbers. So you are correct in that there was a large chunk of Jewish migration in the 1910's/20's which had zionist goals. But I think saying 'Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state' is a little disingenuous. Just as many were victims fleeing persecution as they were religious imperialists, if not considerably more.
KTG17 wrote: ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.
Pendentic a bit I know, but Jews were never detained in Egypt. It's a myth based on an actual true exile, but to Babylon which was central for the development of Jewish monotheism and of much of hteir mythology.
The emerged from Canaanite tribes in what would be Southern Palestine/Israel and slowly conquered and assimilated other tribes in the region. Built Jerusalem and a short lived kingdom; became an Egyptian protectorat of sort; it was destroyed later by the Assyrian; the population enslaved in Babylon; allowed to return a few centuries later; re-established their control over a variety of provinces and small kingdoms; conquered by the Romans and subjected to two waves of ethnic cleansing by them. The majority of the population was exiled in Europe (a minority in Northern Africa), found refuge in Spain; chassed off Spain after the Reconquista; established itself in Eastern Europe; chassed off Eastern Europe; went full circle and returned back to Palestine.
Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state. Hell, most of the founding members emigrated to Palestine in their lifetime with that goal.
I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate. You have the initial population set up from Jews fleeing Russian pogroms in the nineteenth century. You have the 60,000 odd Jews who emigrated to Palestine from Germany in the 1930's (for reasons primarily unrelated to setting up a state). You had the hundred odd thousand who began emigrating immediately post-WW2 (check out the Cyprus camps), many of whom again, were not exactly doing it out of a desire to set up a state as much as it was to ditch the ongoing European troubles (to put it mildly). Then after Israel was officially established, you had 140,000 Holocaust survivors alone migrating there who hadn't been able to until the British blockade lifted.
For a region that only had about 600,000 people in 1910, and barely double that by the time of Israel (including Arabs), these aren't small numbers. So you are correct in that there was a large chunk of Jewish migration in the 1910's/20's which had zionist goals. But I think saying 'Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state' is a little disingenuous. Just as many were victims fleeing persecution as they were religious imperialists.
Problem is they could have gone anywhere else. But the vast majority came to Palestine to found a Jewish state. Originally the amount of Jews was absolutely tiny. They all participated in the establishment of Israel. Very few can claim ancestry to the area without having to fall back on Roman times, which was more my point.
Pendentic a bit I know, but Jews were never detained in Egypt. It's a myth based on an actual true exile, but to Babylon which was central for the development of Jewish monotheism and of much of hteir mythology.
The emerged from Canaanite tribes in what would be Southern Palestine/Israel and slowly conquered and assimilated other tribes in the region. Built Jerusalem and a short lived kingdom; became an Egyptian protectorat of sort; it was destroyed later by the Assyrian; the population enslaved in Babylon; allowed to return a few centuries later; re-established their control over a variety of provinces and small kingdoms; conquered by the Romans and subjected to two waves of ethnic cleansing by them. The majority of the population was exiled in Europe (a minority in Northern Africa), found refuge in Spain; chassed off Spain after the Reconquista; established itself in Eastern Europe; chassed off Eastern Europe; went full circle and returned back to Palestine.
That is pretty interesting. Honestly.
I am finding all this debating pointless tho. We're just going in circles here.
I am 5 seconds away from emailing the Anti-Defamation League.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.
ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.
The Romans kicked many of them out of Palestine and sent them all over Europe! That is why they created Israel. It is about as close to a homeland as they can have, unless you want to go back to Egypt.
Man, what the hell.
First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.
KTG17 wrote: ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.
Pendentic a bit I know, but Jews were never detained in Egypt. It's a myth based on an actual true exile, but to Babylon which was central for the development of Jewish monotheism and of much of hteir mythology.
The emerged from Canaanite tribes in what would be Southern Palestine/Israel and slowly conquered and assimilated other tribes in the region. Built Jerusalem and a short lived kingdom; became an Egyptian protectorat of sort; it was destroyed later by the Assyrian; the population enslaved in Babylon; allowed to return a few centuries later; re-established their control over a variety of provinces and small kingdoms; conquered by the Romans and subjected to two waves of ethnic cleansing by them. The majority of the population was exiled in Europe (a minority in Northern Africa), found refuge in Spain; chassed off Spain after the Reconquista; established itself in Eastern Europe; chassed off Eastern Europe; went full circle and returned back to Palestine.
Except ancient Hebrew graffiti was going there and in caves between there and Egypt. And there's a pharoanic inscription about a small tribe of them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.
The point isn't whether the Israeli are Jewish, the point is that
not all jews are Israeli. In fact quite a few of them aren't, and live elsewhere. There are even quite a few Jews who disagree with it. Tldr: Israel =/ The Jewish People.
So, criticizing Israel for its actions and policies is *not* the same thing as being anti-semitic, a slur that often (not always incorrectly, but increasingly so) gets thrown at people critical of Israel.
Tangentially, most Israeli Jews are descendents of those Jews who decided to move there since the state of Israel was created following WW2, and thus are generally of the zionist persuasion.
Problem is they could have gone anywhere else. But the vast majority came to Palestine to found a Jewish state. Originally the amount of Jews was absolutely tiny.
They did go everywhere else. They set up colonies in America, Rhodesia, lots of places. The wandering Jew is a trope for a reason. Saying that the 'vast majority' who came to Palestine did it to found a Jewish state is numerically incorrect. I literally just gave some of the figures above. Taking into account descendants of people fleeing persecution and those who did, in fact, flee persecution, you're looking at maybe half who could potentially be described as zionist? Not exactly the 'vast majority'.
Furthermore, even for those who had the idea of a 'Jewish state' in mind, it wasn't necessarily in the concept of a separate government as it could also be a region under the British Empire. It should be remembered that anti-semitism wasn't exactly dead at that stage (understatement). The idea of being able to live in a place free of persecution and surrounded by your own kind was a strong and integral part of the zionist dream. If you'd told the black people of the 1920's that they could all move to Louisiana or somesuch, and live completely free of racism there, I daresay many would have jumped at the chance.
So even out of that portion who could be described as 'zionist', the idea of building a better future for their children free from persecution by surrounding themselves with their own kind was likely a considerably higher priority for many than setting up their own Home Office. Ask a dozen Jews what they understand Zionism to mean, and you'll get a dozen answers. 'Founding a state' in the sense of going somewhere explicitly to plant a flag and establish national independence? I doubt that a huge number of those Jews in the 1920's would have described their 'zionist' tendencies as such.
Problem is they could have gone anywhere else. But the vast majority came to Palestine to found a Jewish state. Originally the amount of Jews was absolutely tiny.
They did go everywhere else. They set up colonies in America, Rhodesia, lots of places. The wandering Jew is a trope for a reason. Saying that the 'vast majority' who came to Palestine did it to found a Jewish state is numerically incorrect. I literally just gave some of the figures above. Taking into account descendants of people fleeing persecution and those who did, in fact, flee persecution, you're looking at maybe half who could potentially be described as zionist? Not exactly the 'vast majority'.
Furthermore, even for those who had the idea of a 'Jewish state' in mind, it wasn't necessarily in the concept of a separate government as it could also be a region under the British Empire. It should be remembered that anti-semitism wasn't exactly dead at that stage (understatement). The idea of being able to live in a place free of persecution and surrounded by your own kind was a strong and integral part of the zionist dream. If you'd told the black people of the 1920's that they could all move to Louisiana or somesuch, and live completely free of racism there, I daresay many would have jumped at the chance.
So even out of that portion who could be described as 'zionist', the idea of building a better future for their children free from persecution by surrounding themselves with their own kind was likely a considerably higher priority for many than setting up their own Home Office. Ask a dozen Jews what they understand Zionism to mean, and you'll get a dozen answers. 'Founding a state' in the sense of going somewhere explicitly to plant a flag and establish national independence? I doubt that a huge number of those Jews in the 1920's would have described their 'zionist' tendencies as such.
I was a bit short, I should have said the vast majority of Jews in Israel had grandparents that came over and participated in the foundation of the Jewish state. Very few can actually trace their ancestry to the region back before thw migration waves. Sure, I'm not disputing the reasons why they went. I'm disputing people saying Jews have been living there forever if Jews somehow equals Israeli. I'm not getting into the zionist part, because its a minefield and more often than not just a dogwhistle for anti semitism I find (not saying you're doing so mind). If I came across as such apologies.
Disciple of Fate wrote: First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.
Okay now you are just being anti-semitic.
What? How? Jist because I said it was silly to exercise any sort of claim about where you used to live 2000 years ago?
" My earlier point was that if you can exert control over the land, its going to be yours. End of story."
Yep - this is how it's worked everywhere else up until now. Not sure why anyone expect it to change...especially here.
Also lets chill on calling people racist. It really distracts from actual racism and has a "boy who cries wolf" affect when you throw it around so willy nilly.
True, Israel will only give it up if incentivized. Like the Sinai in exchange for peace. They removed the settlers for that. Palestine has little to offer however.
Disciple of Fate wrote: True, Israel will only give it up if incentivized. Like the Sinai in exchange for peace. They removed the settlers for that. Palestine has little to offer however.
As I mentionned before, the only thing they can offer is reducing their territorial claims and hope that Israeli warmongers (and their allies in other nations) take a backseat to the more concilient Israeli politicians (West Bank colonists are very unpopular within the Israeli population). Namely, if they give up Jerusalem, Israel might give up the West Bank. If they recognise the State of Israel (including Jerusalem) and denounced Hamas (or other islamic groups) they might have a shot at negotiation. If they are waiting for the rest of the world to unite and defeat israel so they can recover all their land, they will lose everything. It's not going to happen if only because the social project of the Palestenian authority isn't attractive to Western powers.
What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.
To be fair Palestine was never really asked. It was occupied first by the British, then Egypt/Jordan and finally Israel. Not much to give up when you hold no control in the first place.
Frazzled wrote: What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.
Indeed a bit hard to tell. Palestenian authorities, much like the current Israel government, is following a hard line. They don't want to give up anything. In fact, they want to reclaim back some of what they lost following 1948. If Palestenians aren't ready to abandon something important, even the more moderate political groups within Israel will not be willing to settle and they will lose everything.
Frazzled wrote: What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.
Indeed a bit hard to tell. Palestenian authorities, much like the current Israel government, is following a hard line. They don't want to give up anything. In fact, they want to reclaim back some of what they lost following 1948. If Palestenians aren't ready to abandon something important, even the more moderate political groups within Israel will not be willing to settle and they will lose everything.
The other point to keep in mind is that the various incarnations of the governing authority in Gaza and the West Bank are deliberately kept weak by Israel, they’ve never had the resources, firepower or manpower to actually go after groups like Hamas and other militants and stop them from attacking Israel. If the authorities had the ability to conduct counter terror operations Israel would likely consider the Palestinian authorities/police to be a threat and work against them. So the Palestinians are in a catch 22, unable to work against Hamas, even if that had popular support, and therefore unable to meet conditions Israel demands for negotiations, which is pretty much the way Israel wants it to be.
The other point to keep in mind is that the various incarnations of the governing authority in Gaza and the West Bank are deliberately kept weak by Israel, they’ve never had the resources, firepower or manpower to actually go after groups like Hamas and other militants and stop them from attacking Israel. If the authorities had the ability to conduct counter terror operations Israel would likely consider the Palestinian authorities/police to be a threat and work against them. So the Palestinians are in a catch 22, unable to work against Hamas, even if that had popular support, and therefore unable to meet conditions Israel demands for negotiations, which is pretty much the way Israel wants it to be.
If Palestenians had a strong government, they would still be opposed to Israel and would have probably launched conventional warfare against it and would have more supports from regional allies like Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc. Israel is also in a catch 22. If there is a strong Palestenian authority, it threatens their sovereignty and existence. If they have a weak government, extremists within Palesteine have an easy job at taking control of the territory and treaten Israel with kidnappings, ambushes and attacks on civilians. If htere was an easy and obviously ''good'' solution, the regional actors would have already taken it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: True, Israel will only give it up if incentivized. Like the Sinai in exchange for peace. They removed the settlers for that. Palestine has little to offer however.
As I mentionned before, the only thing they can offer is reducing their territorial claims and hope that Israeli warmongers (and their allies in other nations) take a backseat to the more concilient Israeli politicians (West Bank colonists are very unpopular within the Israeli population). Namely, if they give up Jerusalem, Israel might give up the West Bank. If they recognise the State of Israel (including Jerusalem) and denounced Hamas (or other islamic groups) they might have a shot at negotiation. If they are waiting for the rest of the world to unite and defeat israel so they can recover all their land, they will lose everything. It's not going to happen if only because the social project of the Palestenian authority isn't attractive to Western powers.
True. If there waiting for US or there Arab freinds who see them as little more than a tool to bear Israel over the head with on a regular basis. We there mistaken.
In thr alliance terms and value gained... Israel. Advanced tech, cutting edge military gear, modern investments, start ups and a safe Western freindly zone in middle east.
Also access to territorial waters and... Potential Oil.
Palastinians. Well they got olives... Can throw stones well.
They have little tech or industry to leverage, they have few cards that carry international weight outside of token gestures.
Disciple of Fate wrote:Problem being Jerusalem is a dealbreaker. Giving up settlements in exchange for Jerusalem is too much for Palestine.
Jerusalem would be a hard sell. Kingdom of Heaven put it well.. What is worth.
Frazzled wrote: What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.
I had a good response to this, but the forum screwed up and i don't want to re-write fifteen paragraphs again, so:
Israel has agreed to much, but delivered... not a lot.
No one ever asked the Palestinians to give up anything, they just took what they wanted, and threw them out of their homes, and murdered anyone who resisted or questioned, or protested. They tortured Americans, committed terrorism against British subjects, and shot Russians, and murdered their own people who protested..
And yet, a lot of people, for reasons frankly beyond me, think they're the good guys. Because they play the victim. I mean, my god, questioning the right of the Israeli state to butcher innocent people is itself considered anti-Semitic.
Let me ask a genuine question: How many of you supporting Israel in this would like to explain to me how murdering children with sniper rifles is protecting Israel? How is blowing away unarmed reporters a justifiable act? I have heard a whole lot of hyperbole about 'Oh, the Israelis are surrounded by people who hate them' well, yes, and you would be too if you slaughtered your neighbors relatives.
If you hold, as some do, that this is a war (despite not in any way meeting the international definition of it) then again, what has been going on are war crimes. Serious ones, not 'Oh, someone stole a culturally significant artifact' but 'Oh, we filled the streets with civilian bodies'.
If it's not a war, then this is murder by the state.
Disciple of Fate wrote: First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.
Okay now you are just being anti-semitic.
What? How? Jist because I said it was silly to exercise any sort of claim about where you used to live 2000 years ago?
I'd also like to know how that is even remotely anti-semitic, unless it's somehow anti-semitic to claim that the Exodus is a myth?
Disciple of Fate wrote: First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.
Okay now you are just being anti-semitic.
What? How? Jist because I said it was silly to exercise any sort of claim about where you used to live 2000 years ago?
I'd also like to know how that is even remotely anti-semitic, unless it's somehow anti-semitic to claim that the Exodus is a myth?
I fully support Israel in most cases, and even I believe that the Exodus is a myth
This was just one operation in Gaza by Israel. in just one month
That is a nice infographic with zero supporting evidence so good job
Also if it is true, I can hazard to guess why they were killed but since you protect Hamas every time you post baron I wouldn't put it past you to ignore it
That is a nice infographic with zero supporting evidence so good job
Also if it is true, I can hazard to guess why they were killed but since you protect Hamas every time you post baron I wouldn't put it past you to ignore it
Actually I prefer Fatah. But bluntly, no, Hamas are terrorists, but the thing is, I see terrorism and religious fundamentalism as minor issues compared to war crimes and, legally speaking, attempts at genocide.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.
ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.
Which is cool and that, but how does that weigh with the rights of the people who were the not 2000 but 70 years ago.
I assume you're not 100% native American, are you going to go to Britain or Germany or Russia to claim your lost kingdom?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.
ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.
Which is cool and that, but how does that weigh with the rights of the people who were the not 2000 but 70 years ago.
I assume you're not 100% native American, are you going to go to Britain or Germany or Russia to claim your lost kingdom?
Not to mention the fact that the Palestinians are descended of those same ancient populations that modern Israeli Jews claim descent of. From an ethnical point of view, modern Israeli Jews are mostly descended of populations that emigrated away from the Middle East millennia ago and then integrated and mixed with various other populations across the world (primarily European), while the Palestinians are the native population of the Middle East. They are descended of the people who stayed behind. It gets muddled a lot because people tend to use terms such as 'Jew' and 'Arab' as ethnic labels, while they in fact are not. 'Jews' are a religious and cultural group, but not an ethnic one. There is many different Jewish ethnicities and a Jew can be of any ethnicity. Similarly, 'Arabs' are a cultural and linguistic group, but not an ethnical one. Arabs are not one single people, they are actually many different peoples that just happen to share a single language and have cultural similarities because at one point in the past they were all conquered by Caliphs from Arabia who imposed their culture, language and religion on the peoples they conquered (both with varying degrees of success, considering the existence of non-muslim arabs and non-arab muslims). It is like people in Africa who were conquered by the English and speak English and have adopted English culture, but are not the same people as the English in England. Palestinians speak roughly the same language as Arabians and have adopted many aspects of Arabian culture, but they are not the same people.
If you call it fairytale books, that shows you understand nothing of religion and are really not qualified to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian question (or any question involving religion) in an intelligent manner.
Thanks for the ad hominem. Similarly I think that whoever puts religion higher than stuff such as property or other human rights is not qualified to be in any kind of position of power, but that's my personal belief.
I understand that religion is so important to some people that they're ready to inflict harm to others or themselves (to the point of death, if need be), plus some of the best historians of religion are atheists, so we'll have to disagree on that.
I've been to the all of the holy places spelled here out pure of historical intest (just like I've been to Yad Bashem and, being a wargamer, to Yad La-Shirom as well, I even have a pilgrim certificate). You can perfectly understand something and not agree with it, whoever tells you differently is just telling spiritual BS. Actually that's the purest, simplest rule of living in a society: be prepared that other people will think different and learn to live with that.
Aye, being an atheist does not disqualify you from understanding or being knowledgeable about religion, but equating religion to fairy tales does. There are many atheist scholars of religion, I personally know some, but none of them would ever equate religion to fairy tales. They are very different things. The only similarity (assuming you are an atheist) is that you don't believe in either of them. But that does not make them similar.
From an ethnical point of view, modern Israeli Jews are mostly descended of populations that emigrated away from the Middle East millennia ago and then integrated and mixed with various other populations across the world (primarily European), while the Palestinians are the native population of the Middle East.
Funnily enough, unlike most immigrants, this isn't really true. Why?
Because Jewish populations have tended not to integrate biologically; requiring a parent to be Jewish, being generally despised by the locals throughout history, and rarely accepting converts has put the kibosh on it. Jews are consequently often quite genetically distinct usually from the host population of any given country; having genetically more in common with other Jewish populations. Ashkenazism is particularly notable for this (40% of the population descends from just four easily identifiable women a very long time ago). The Sephardics are less so, but the fact remains that generally speaking, you can actually often apparently pick out a Jewish sample from a random batch in a lab.
It's a touchy subject though, because it leads to concerns about crazy superiority/inferiority complexes both being bolstered. Tends not to get mentioned.
Furthermore, the region of Palestine has actually been effectively depopulated several times in history (under the Mongols, Ottomans, etc). As was said earlier, the population even back at the start of the 20th century was only half a million, Jews included. Fifty years before? Half that. 'Palestinians' as an identifiable ethnic subset didn't exist; all would have self-identified as something else. People entered and left the region quite regularly and population increase was very low outside of set migration events. For example, there was actually a large influx of people of Arabic extraction from neighbouring areas like Egypt in the 1920's, as the region was doing very well economically.
This fact also tends not to get mentioned because it intrudes on the 'Our land since time immemorial' rhetoric of the Palestinian population.
It's only over the last fifty years that the ethnic social construct of 'Palestinian' has taken root alongside that of the 'Israeli' one; both as the number of all inhabitants has doubled many times over and as a reaction to each other. Ultimately, both 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' are completely new ethnic social groupings. Neither has a strong claim to being the 'original inhabitants' from a neutral standpoint beyond the 'I was born here' one. Most of them aren't descended from anyone who's been there longer than a hundred and fifty years, and many from people who moved there less than a century ago.
But really, like any kind of deep seated ethnic divide, what's perceived to be the case is far more important than what actually is the case (Roma and Romanian anyone?). So both sets of people claim it for their own, and the fighting goes on.
From an ethnical point of view, modern Israeli Jews are mostly descended of populations that emigrated away from the Middle East millennia ago and then integrated and mixed with various other populations across the world (primarily European), while the Palestinians are the native population of the Middle East.
Funnily enough, unlike most immigrants, this isn't really true. Why?
Because Jewish populations have tended not to integrate biologically; requiring a parent to be Jewish, being generally despised by the locals throughout history, and rarely accepting converts has put the kibosh on it. Jews are consequently often quite genetically distinct usually from the host population of any given country; having genetically more in common with other Jewish populations. Ashkenazism is particularly notable for this (40% of the population descends from just four easily identifiable women a very long time ago). The Sephardics are less so, but the fact remains that generally speaking, you can actually often apparently pick out a Jewish sample from a random batch in a lab.
Jewish patrilineal lines show Middle Eastern descent, but matrilineal lines are overwhelmingly native European.The isolation of Jewish population is only something that started during the Middle Ages, and it is something that always differed from place to place and time to time. Plenty of times and places where Jews where fully accepted and integrated in society, virtually indistinguishable from other religious groups in the same population. In case of the Khazars, the rulers even adopted Judaism their own religion. And even in places where Jews where somewhat shunned, intermarriage was not unheard of. Genetics show that while modern Jews definitely tend to have some Middle Eastern descent, and you could indeed pick out a Jewish sample right away in a lab because of the presence of typically Middle-Eastern markers, there is a lot of mixing as well. That goes for Ashkenazim, and for other Jewish groups even more. So while you could pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a European batch because of the presence of Middle Eastern markers, you could equally pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a Middle Eastern batch because of the presence of uniquely European markers. It's a touchy subject though, because it leads to concerns about crazy superiority/inferiority complexes both being bolstered. Tends not to get mentioned.
Ketara wrote: Furthermore, the region of Palestine has actually been effectively depopulated several times in history (under the Mongols, Ottomans, etc). As was said earlier, the population even back at the start of the 20th century was only half a million, Jews included. Fifty years before? Half that. 'Palestinians' as an identifiable ethnic subset didn't exist; all would have self-identified as something else. People entered and left the region quite regularly and population increase was very low outside of set migration events. For example, there was actually a large influx of people of Arabic extraction from neighbouring areas like Egypt in the 1920's, as the region was doing very well economically.
This fact also tends not to get mentioned because it intrudes on the 'Our land since time immemorial' rhetoric of the Palestinian population.
Archaeological evidence does show several population declines, but it also shows continuity. The region was never depopulated. The area has been populated constantly from early prehistory up to now. Now, every population is mixed. There is no such thing as a "pure" ethnicity. There is and always has been a constant movement of people. So in every area of the world, the general population living there are both the descendants of people who lived in that same area in an unbroken line for thousands of years and the descendants of the many immigrants that have moved into the area over the millennia. That is why I generally think that ethnicity-based claims on land are bogus, but in the Israel case there is something to be said for it, seeing as that the Israelis do not really have native ancestry (sure, they have Middle Eastern ancestry, but after 2000 years you can't call that native anymore). Now, the Israelis are living there now, so they are now the new native population with as much right to the land as everyone else, but I do find the Zionist claims on the Holy Land based on their Jewish 'ancestry' to be preposterous. They had absolutely no right to invade the area and displace the people living there.
Ketara wrote: It's only over the last fifty years that the ethnic social construct of 'Palestinian' has taken root alongside that of the 'Israeli' one; both as the number of all inhabitants has doubled many times over and as a reaction to each other. Ultimately, both 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' are completely new ethnic social groupings. Neither has a strong claim to being the 'original inhabitants' from a neutral standpoint beyond the 'I was born here' one. Most of them aren't descended from anyone who's been there longer than a hundred and fifty years, and many from people who moved there less than a century ago.
But really, like any kind of deep seated ethnic divide, what's perceived to be the case is far more important than what actually is the case (Roma and Romanian anyone?). So both sets of people claim it for their own, and the fighting goes on.
Yes, Palestinians are very recently formed as a separate ethnic identity, formed because of the shared experience of being forced off their ancestral land and live under Israeli control. But like any ethnic group, they are formed directly out of the ethnic group that preceded them (like English were formed from Normans, Danes and Anglo-Saxons who were in turned formed from Saxons, Angles, Britons and others who were in turn all formed from earlier groups). And Palestine has been continuously inhabited, and so modern Palestinians are in a direct line descended from all of the people who have lived in the area previously for the past thousands of years. Certainly, a lot of Palestinians are direct descendants of relatively recent immigrants to the area (but then again, that is true for every area), but many others are direct descendants of people who have been there much longer. And over time, that all blends together into what we call 'native population'.
Also, to clarify, Roma and Romanians are completely unrelated peoples. The Roma are an ethnic group of Indian origin that immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages, while the Romanians are a European ethnic group that is descended of the Roman (or romanised) population of the ancient Roman province of Dacia.The similarity in name is merely a coincidence (which in Romanian gets even more awkward). It is a good example because a lot of people confuse Roma and Romanians (due to the similarity in name and the fact that many Roma live in Romania and are Romanian citizens), to the absolute horror of the Romanians who tend to be totally racist against gypsies and hate it when they get associated with them.
Furthermore, the region of Palestine has actually been effectively depopulated several times in history (under the Mongols, Ottomans, etc). As was said earlier, the population even back at the start of the 20th century was only half a million, Jews included. Fifty years before? Half that. 'Palestinians' as an identifiable ethnic subset didn't exist; all would have self-identified as something else. People entered and left the region quite regularly and population increase was very low outside of set migration events. For example, there was actually a large influx of people of Arabic extraction from neighbouring areas like Egypt in the 1920's, as the region was doing very well economically.
This fact also tends not to get mentioned because it intrudes on the 'Our land since time immemorial' rhetoric of the Palestinian population.
Actually from what I've found, the depopulation of Palestine is partially myth. Remember that the maximum sustainable population BCE was only around 1.2 million people. This was attained around 600CE, and began to decline after that down to 150k people in the 14th century, and then increasing again following the events of the reconquista, and jews from Spain being allowed to resettle the area. However, Jews only made up a grand total of 5k out of 157k when actual numbers were kept starting in the 1530s.
Not too sure on the self identity thing, as it was Emperor Diocletian who renamed the area 'Palaestina' (Broken down into Prima [Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Peraea and the coastal plain, with Caesarea Maritima as capital], Seconda [Galilee, Decapolis and Golan, with Beth-Shean as capital], and Tertia [the Negev desert, with Petra as capital]. Little data to support this either way survives, not in the least because both current parties are known to take archeologists at gunpoint and destroy or sell anything they don't like.
Jewish patrilineal lines show Middle Eastern descent, but matrilineal lines are overwhelmingly native European.The isolation of Jewish population is only something that started during the Middle Ages, and it is something that always differed from place to place and time to time. Plenty of times and places where Jews where fully accepted and integrated in society, virtually indistinguishable from other religious groups in the same population. In case of the Khazars, the rulers even adopted Judaism their own religion. And even in places where Jews where somewhat shunned, intermarriage was not unheard of.
Errrr...are you actually claiming that most Jewish people have Jewish fathers instead of mothers? And hat Jews were socially isolated only from the Middle Ages onwards? Because you might want to read up a little bit first on Judaism if so.
Genetics show that while modern Jews definitely tend to have some Middle Eastern descent, and you could indeed pick out a Jewish sample right away in a lab because of the presence of typically Middle-Eastern markers, there is a lot of mixing as well. That goes for Ashkenazim, and for other Jewish groups even more. So while you could pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a European batch because of the presence of Middle Eastern markers, you could equally pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a Middle Eastern batch because of the presence of uniquely European markers.
Sure? None of this is disagreeing with anything I've said. Namely that there are certain genetic combinations which tend to be exclusive to Jews as opposed to the given population of any region of the world that they're born in.
Archaeological evidence does show several population declines, but it also shows continuity. The region was never depopulated. The area has been populated constantly from early prehistory up to now.
Okay. Let me qualify, because you seem to have taken my statement to the absurd extreme of 'Everyone left or was killed from Palestine'. Which isn't quite what I was saying to begin with.
What is true is that any given region of Palestine has likely been completely depopulated at one point or another due to the various military actions which have regularly steamrollered the place, and that there's been a general widespread rotation of people amongst the people who lived in the Middle-East generally. When you get back to our earliest ability to make estimates (the 15th century), you have scarcely 150,000 people in the place, and the population increase has been absolutely minute up until the nineteenth century.
Now, every population is mixed. There is no such thing as a "pure" ethnicity.
There's no such thing as ethnicity or race at all; they're both completely fabricated social constructs.
And Palestine has been continuously inhabited, and so modern Palestinians are in a direct line descended from all of the people who have lived in the area previously for the past thousands of years. Certainly, a lot of Palestinians are direct descendants of relatively recent immigrants to the area (but then again, that is true for every area), but many others are direct descendants of people who have been there much longer. And over time, that all blends together into what we call 'native population'.
BaronIveagh wrote:Actually from what I've found, the depopulation of Palestine is partially myth. Remember that the maximum sustainable population BCE was only around 1.2 million people. This was attained around 600CE, and began to decline after that down to 150k people in the 14th century, and then increasing again following the events of the reconquista, and jews from Spain being allowed to resettle the area. However, Jews only made up a grand total of 5k out of 157k when actual numbers were kept starting in the 1530s.
I've addressed this slightly above. People move about. The population in Palestine in the 1800's aren't all descended from the people who were there in the 1500's. That area of the world has seen huge migratory movements through it over the last millennia alone. Some have been caused by military invasions, some have been as a result of oppression and scarcity of resources, some have been fleeing other places. Some of the Circassians for example, got partially resettled there after being expelled from Russia in the nineteenth century (it only takes a fraction of that million exiled to materially affect the population figures of Palestine). Mehmmet Ali resettled large numbers from Egypt across the Ottoman Empire over a thirty year period. I could go on, but the point is that there are multiple tales of large scale migrations in and out of the Palestine region all throughout just nineteenth century, let alone the two or three centuries before that. Christ, pastoral roving tribes alone have gone through dropping people off and taking them on for the longest of times.
You don't just get to say 'Ah, well there was a population of 450,000 non-Jews there in 1900 and that must mean that all Palestinians are partially descended from these people who must have been there for hundreds and hundreds of years'. That's adding half a dozen inferences straight off the bat.
The fact is, both Israeli and Palestinian populations can, for the most part, trace their stories back about a hundred years at most before large scale immigration enters the picture. Sure, they might be able to point to the line of one far distant great great great grandparent who lived there for the last five hundred years, but the Jewish population can do that too (because the Jews never did leave Palestine altogether). It's not exclusive to any of them. Once you get into that many steps back, you tend to find a lot of family trees start combining and linking up for an area with a relatively small population. Most of the initial forefathers of the Palestinian population, like the Israeli one, came to the area in the past two hundred years.
And in the face of that? It's really as much the Israeli 'land' as it is Palestinian, from (note the qualification!!!) an ethnic and historical angle. Which, it should be pointed out and emphasised heavily, are both pretty terrible ways to judge these things in the first place.
Jewish patrilineal lines show Middle Eastern descent, but matrilineal lines are overwhelmingly native European.The isolation of Jewish population is only something that started during the Middle Ages, and it is something that always differed from place to place and time to time. Plenty of times and places where Jews where fully accepted and integrated in society, virtually indistinguishable from other religious groups in the same population. In case of the Khazars, the rulers even adopted Judaism their own religion. And even in places where Jews where somewhat shunned, intermarriage was not unheard of.
Errrr...are you actually claiming that most Jewish people have Jewish fathers instead of mothers? And hat Jews were socially isolated only from the Middle Ages onwards? Because you might want to read up a little bit first on Judaism if so.
I am talking about genetic lineages here. That your matrilineal lineage is European does not necessarily mean your mother is. Just that somewhere down the line, she is descended of Europeans. The view is that when the Ashkenazim initially immigrated to Europe (only a very small group, about 350 identifiable individuals), they were composed primarily of men who then took native European wives (who supposedly were introduced in Judaism and so became Jewish). And if you think Jews were always isolated, you might have some reading to do. Hell, just take a look at Nazi documentation if you want to see to what degree Jews had become integrated in European society. My point is that while there certainly where times and places where Jews were ostracised or otherwise isolated from mainstream European society, there were also plenty of times and places where Christians and Jews lived together without any real separation or distinction.
Genetics show that while modern Jews definitely tend to have some Middle Eastern descent, and you could indeed pick out a Jewish sample right away in a lab because of the presence of typically Middle-Eastern markers, there is a lot of mixing as well. That goes for Ashkenazim, and for other Jewish groups even more. So while you could pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a European batch because of the presence of Middle Eastern markers, you could equally pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a Middle Eastern batch because of the presence of uniquely European markers.
Sure? None of this is disagreeing with anything I've said. Namely that there are certain genetic combinations which tend to be exclusive to Jews as opposed to any region of the world that they'd born in.
Yes it is. You said Jews have tended not to integrate biologically. Which is totally not true, as evidenced by their genetic makeup. Ashkenazim for example share most of their genes with the generic European gene pool, with only a few genes that make them stand out. There has been a huge lot of "biological integration" (I will totally be going to use that as an euphemism for sex in a future publication ) between Jews and non-Jews. Not enough to make them indistinct from non-Jew European populations, but enough to make them cluster with other European populations.
Archaeological evidence does show several population declines, but it also shows continuity. The region was never depopulated. The area has been populated constantly from early prehistory up to now.
Okay. Let me qualify, because you seem to have taken my statement to absurd extreme of 'Everyone left or was killed from Palestine'. Which isn't true, but isn't quite what I was saying to begin with.
What is true is that any given region of Palestine has likely been completely depopulated at one point or another due to the various military actions which have regularly steamrollered the place, and that there's been a general widespread rotation of people amongst the people who lived in the Middle-East generally. When you get back to our earliest ability to make estimates (the 15th century), you have scarcely 150,000 people in the place, and the population increase has been absolutely minute up until the nineteenth century.
"completely depopulated" means that there are no people at all. If you don't want me to think you are meaning that there was no one left, you probably should not put it that way.
The Holy Land shows big fluctuations in population throughout history (which is true for every area of the world. Also, archaeologists can make population estimates much farther back than the 15th century), but it also shows continuity. There was never a phase were everyone left or died. That means that every single group of people that has ever came to live in the Holy Land has mixed with the pre-existing population there and as such descends from the earliest inhabitants.
Now, every population is mixed. There is no such thing as a "pure" ethnicity.
There's no such thing as ethnicity or race at all; they're both completely fabricated social constructs.
Virtually everything is a social construct. Social constructs are as real as you can get though.
BaronIveagh wrote:I've addressed this slightly above. People move about. The population in Palestine in the 1800's aren't all descended from the people who were there in the 1500's. That area of the world has seen huge migratory movements through it over the last millennia alone. Some have been caused by military invasions, some have been as a result of oppression and scarcity of resources, some have been fleeing other places. Some of the Circassians for example, got partially resettled there after being expelled from Russia in the nineteenth century (it only takes a fraction of that to materially affect the population figures of Palestine). Mehmmet Ali resettled large numbers from Egypt across the Ottoman Empire over a thirty year period. I could go on, but the point is that there are multiple tales of large scale migrations in and out of the Palestine region all throughout just nineteenth century, let alone the two or three centuries before that. Christ, pastoral roving tribes alone have gone through dropping people off and taking them on for the longest of times.
You don't just get to say 'Ah, well there was a population of 450,000 non-Jews there in 1900 and that must mean that all Palestinians are partially descended from these people who must have been there for hundreds and hundreds of years'. That's adding half a dozen inferences straight off the bat.
The fact is, both Israeli and Palestinian populations can, for the most part, trace their stories back about a hundred years at most before large scale immigration enters the picture. Sure, they might be able to point to the line of one far distant great great great grandparent who lived there for the last five hundred years, but the Jewish population can do that too (because the Jews never did leave Palestine altogether). It's not exclusive to any of them. Once you get into that many steps back, you tend to find a lot of family trees start combining and linking up for an area with a relatively small population. Most of the initial forefathers of the Palestinian population, like the Israeli one, came to the area in the past two hundred years.
Yes, that is very true. But populations mix. Circassian refugees or Egyptian immigrants don't stay that for more than a few generations before they become indistinguishable from the rest of the population in the area. If an Egyptian immigrant marries with a local man or woman who is descended of an earlier immigrant who also married a local man/woman ad inf. then their child will already be descended from the earliest inhabitants of that region. So that means that if in 1900, you find 450,000 non-Jews living in the area, it is virtually certain that they are descended of people who have been in the area for hundreds and hundreds of years, unless they literally arrived only a few generations ago (and even then it is only going to take a few generations more before they will be). In the world, you will not find even a single person who is 100% native to the region where he lives, and apart from very recent immigrants neither will you find people who are 100% alien to their region. Genetics work exponentially. Every generation you go back your amount of ancestors gets larger, as each ancestor also has two ancestors of his/her own. And as you say, it does not take much time before family trees start combining and linking up, even for wildly different population groups. That is for example why virtually every European is descended from Charlemagne. Because by the time you trace your line back to Charlemagne's time you get millions of ancestors, and the statistical likelihood of one of them being Charlemagne gets pretty close to 100%. That is why I said earlier that tracing genetic lineages further back than a few hundred years is utterly meaningless. In the end, everyone is descended of the same few people. Besides that, if you go that far back, you have to deal with dilution as well, which means that most people alive today share no DNA at all with people who lived 2000 years ago, which means that who you descend from is even more meaningless. Whether you are descended from Augustus or Cao Cao, it has no effect at all since you probably carry none of their DNA either way.
So, while the majority of Palestinians alive today probably has a line that goes back to people who lived in the area in Biblical times, as do most Israelis. So yeah, I think we are in agreement here. But that does mean that none of that ancient descent really matters, since it is mostly just the same anyway. What matters more is the last few generations, and it is in those generations that we can really say that the Palestinians were the native population, while the Israelis are immigrants. Most Palestinians can say that they were born in the area, their parents were and their grandparents as well. But Israelis? Not many of them would be able to say that. Some of them, certainly, but that'd be a small minority at most. Most Israelis currently alive are the first or second generation that was born in the area. They are very recent immigrants.
BaronIveagh wrote:And in the face of that? It's really as much the Israeli 'land' as it is Palestinian, from (note the qualification!!!) an ethnic and historical angle. Which, it should be pointed out and emphasised heavily, are both pretty terrible ways to judge these things in the first place.
I fully agree. From an ethnic and historical angle it is just as well my land. Probably yours as well. The likelihood of both of us being descended of ancient inhabitants of the region is pretty damn high. Which indeed means it is a totally horrible way to judge these things. As I always say, land should belong to the people who happen to live on it, regardless of who their ancestors are. Which means that I think that Israelis have every bit as much right to the land as the Palestinians do, and that they should go find a way to share it.
Frazzled wrote: What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.
Indeed a bit hard to tell. Palestenian authorities, much like the current Israel government, is following a hard line. They don't want to give up anything. In fact, they want to reclaim back some of what they lost following 1948. If Palestenians aren't ready to abandon something important, even the more moderate political groups within Israel will not be willing to settle and they will lose everything.
The other point to keep in mind is that the various incarnations of the governing authority in Gaza and the West Bank are deliberately kept weak by Israel, they’ve never had the resources, firepower or manpower to actually go after groups like Hamas and other militants and stop them from attacking Israel. If the authorities had the ability to conduct counter terror operations Israel would likely consider the Palestinian authorities/police to be a threat and work against them. So the Palestinians are in a catch 22, unable to work against Hamas, even if that had popular support, and therefore unable to meet conditions Israel demands for negotiations, which is pretty much the way Israel wants it to be.
This is only part of the ploy, frequent low flying, bulldozing, large scale raids keep the Palestinians angry. Israel doesn't want any form of peace with the Palestinians, they want them gone; so they are kept in a pressure cooker environment so they remain volatile. Israel can handle anything the Palestinians can throw at them, literally and metaphorically. They would not be able to handle a Palestinian peace movement, a Palestinian Ghandiesque leader is their worst nightmare, and keeping the anger up the people impoverished undereducated and divided prevents one from appearing. Meanwhile every year a new slice of land is taken for settlements or security zones.
A while back I was reading that a good portion of Palestinians are descendants of people from modern day eastern-Iraq, who immigrated to the area in the 1860's.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd also like to say that there seems to be quite a lot of international interloping and do-gooding that turns out to be quite counter intuitive.
There was a product that swept American late-night infomercials a number of years back. It was a home countertop soda making machine that would make Coke, Dr. Pepper, Sprite, etc.
Although this company was owned by an Israeli Jew, the factory was in Palestine. Palestinians jockeyed for positions there, as it provided several times the pay of the average wage of the community. Standard of living went up, crime down. All was well, until international pressure started.
Apparently it was wrong for a Jew to profit from the physical labor of Palestinians, and the international pressure forced the factory to close.
cuda1179 wrote: A while back I was reading that a good portion of Palestinians are descendants of people from modern day eastern-Iraq, who immigrated to the area in the 1860's.
I can't say that I've heard of this, but based on population increases, it would constitute a very small number, as the majority of Arab influx came during the British Mandate, the same as the Jewish population. In 1927 a Census was done of the Mandate for various reasons, and when compared to earlier numbers the population had tripled, with Jews making up about 30% of the population. Of those queried, most (over 60%) had moved there since the end of the first world war.
This may have been due to the extensive pogroms of both Muslim and Jewish populations that took place in eastern Europe at the time.
All was well, until international pressure started.
Apparently it was wrong for a Jew to profit from the physical labor of Palestinians, and the international pressure forced the factory to close.
Not certain of the particular product, (you can buy machines that do that in Wall-mart right now) but given the time frame, that's not why pressure was put on them.
cuda1179 wrote: A while back I was reading that a good portion of Palestinians are descendants of people from modern day eastern-Iraq, who immigrated to the area in the 1860's.
I can't say that I've heard of this, but based on population increases, it would constitute a very small number, as the majority of Arab influx came during the British Mandate, the same as the Jewish population. In 1927 a Census was done of the Mandate for various reasons, and when compared to earlier numbers the population had tripled, with Jews making up about 30% of the population. Of those queried, most (over 60%) had moved there since the end of the first world war.
This may have been due to the extensive pogroms of both Muslim and Jewish populations that took place in eastern Europe at the time.
On the grand scheme of things, it's just something that's been used to discredit the Palestinian claim.
The general consensus seems to be that slightly under 1/4 of (Arab) population growth can be attributed to immigration rather than natural growth (according to British authorities and most historians like Bernstein, Schmelz, Gilbert,etc.) but really it doesn't matter if they were 50% or 75%
They did assimilate and intermarry with the local population. At most they brought a few new surnames, a few words of their local Arabic dialect and maybe a local dish or two. They were still Muslim (with a significant Christian minority), Arab-speaking from the Mediterranean basin. The children of the Egyptian or Syrian newcomers were indistinguishable from their neighbours in a single generation.
OTOH, the other newcomers came with different customs, languages and, most imporantly, the will to establish a new country based on faith. That's why comparing both sets of immigration is interesting, but doesn't add much except a little footnote on the grand scheme of things.
KTG17 wrote: In all seriousness Israel has no real fear on invasion for some time. Whey will wipe the floor of everyone in the region as they have in the past. If somehow the arabs were able to strangle Israel into a small last stand, then yes, Israel would unleash what nukes it had. But everyone knows that. No one is invading Israel.
I don't think that is really what we should fear for the region. A bigger threat would be a terrorist attack that uses a nuclear or biological weapon. It doesn't even need to be deployed in Israel. A nuclear device deployed in eastern Jerusalem would take out most of the city on both sides and if timed correctly with prevailing winds could easily irradiate vast areas of Israel. As a species we tend to take the approach of "If I can't have it then no one can" and happens from the smallest scale (parents jumping out of windows with children) to the largest scale (WMD).
Unless both sides start to act a bit more rationally and allow better freedom of movement for all people regardless of colour, creed, religion then things aren't going to improve. However neither sides politicians really want this, both gain support from hardline actions because that forces more people on the other side to take more extreme action. Both Hamas and the Israeli government exploit a populations tenancies to maintain their power and ignore the cost in innocent civilian lives.
Trump, I don't think actually cares about the region. He is an aggressive businessman whose business practices were to destabilise other companies and then kill them off or buy them out. From this perspective his strategy makes sense. If you destabilise the region through sanctions on Iran, stirring up unrest in the Middle East etc then that raises oil prices. The recent relatively recent low oil prices has been a killer for the American fuel market overall. It kills off new oil investment and more expensive technologies such as fracking. What Trump has done to destabilise the region has had a huge impact on oil prices though. This directly benefits the US energy sector of which there are a fair few vested interests in the US government. That it will make the whole of the Middle East into something ready to boil over he simply doesn't care about.
Let me ask a genuine question: How many of you supporting Israel in this would like to explain to me how murdering children with sniper rifles is protecting Israel? How is blowing away unarmed reporters a justifiable act? I have heard a whole lot of hyperbole about 'Oh, the Israelis are surrounded by people who hate them' well, yes, and you would be too if you slaughtered your neighbors relatives.
If you hold, as some do, that this is a war (despite not in any way meeting the international definition of it) then again, what has been going on are war crimes. Serious ones, not 'Oh, someone stole a culturally significant artifact' but 'Oh, we filled the streets with civilian bodies'.
If it's not a war, then this is murder by the state.
The thing is, for both sides this is still a war, whether its declared or not. Palestine definitely lost this round, and shooting children with sniper rifles is pretty indefensible in isolation. Now I'm not saying this justifies Israel's response, but think about what they associate Palestine with. Heck, just last year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2017 . Israel exists under almost constant rocket attack originating from the Gaza Strip.
What do you do when your neighbors are also slaughtering your relatives? What is a proportional response to murdering children with rocket and mortar fire?
It is an absolutely awful situation, And one that is all too common in the Middle East. Nothing is simple, there are no good guys, there are no bad guys, there's just an endless cycle of revenge, and there aren't any easy fixes.
Generally one of the most major things that has turned international opinion against Israel have been the massively disproportionate responses by Israel to what are ultimately laughably ineffective attacks. Hell it's arguably why the rocket attacks are launched in the first place. Not to actually harm Israel, but to invoke the predictable heavy response Israel throws out.
Presenting themselves as the victims of a violent oppressive state has been a Palestinian strategy since the 80s.
Let me ask a genuine question: How many of you supporting Israel in this would like to explain to me how murdering children with sniper rifles is protecting Israel? How is blowing away unarmed reporters a justifiable act? I have heard a whole lot of hyperbole about 'Oh, the Israelis are surrounded by people who hate them' well, yes, and you would be too if you slaughtered your neighbors relatives.
If you hold, as some do, that this is a war (despite not in any way meeting the international definition of it) then again, what has been going on are war crimes. Serious ones, not 'Oh, someone stole a culturally significant artifact' but 'Oh, we filled the streets with civilian bodies'.
If it's not a war, then this is murder by the state.
The thing is, for both sides this is still a war, whether its declared or not. Palestine definitely lost this round, and shooting children with sniper rifles is pretty indefensible in isolation. Now I'm not saying this justifies Israel's response, but think about what they associate Palestine with. Heck, just last year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2017 . Israel exists under almost constant rocket attack originating from the Gaza Strip.
What do you do when your neighbors are also slaughtering your relatives? What is a proportional response to murdering children with rocket and mortar fire?
It is an absolutely awful situation, And one that is all too common in the Middle East. Nothing is simple, there are no good guys, there are no bad guys, there's just an endless cycle of revenge, and there aren't any easy fixes.
The rocket attacks are completely inexcusable, but no one died in all those rocket attacks last year except for some Hamas members and a bunch of innocent Palestinians who were caught in Israeli counter-attacks. Israel is a very safe place, and the chance of being hit by a rocket is very low. Way too low to justify Israel's brutality. To descibe it as 'your neighbours slaughtering your relatives' is completely laughable. Now, while having your house destroyed by a rocket, or even losing a family member in a rocket attack is horrible, it is statistically extremely unlikely to ever happen. Israel's response to such feeble attacks is out of all proportion. A more proportional response would be to simply ignore the attacks, work on improving your missile defense system and focus on putting an end to the attacks through diplomatic means. Launching air-to-surface missiles and artillery strikes into apartment buildings, hospitals and schools, killing dozens of people including kids is definitely not the proportional response to a rocket attack that has like a 0.0001% chance of killing someone. The IDF kills more Palestinian civilians in a single operation than Hamas has killed Israeli civilians in its entire existence. That is the sad reality, and it is a reality that absolutely does not justify Israeli actions.
Presenting themselves as the victims of a violent oppressive state has been a Palestinian strategy since the 80s.
It works because its true.
Sadly enough. It is really the only strategy they have left. They have no hope of ever being able to stop Israel themselves, so their only hope of ever defeating Israel is provoking Israel into doing something that is so horrible that the rest of the world will intervene and give them (part) of their land back.
Generally one of the most major things that has turned international opinion against Israel have been the massively disproportionate responses by Israel to what are ultimately laughably ineffective attacks. Hell it's arguably why the rocket attacks are launched in the first place. Not to actually harm Israel, but to invoke the predictable heavy response Israel throws out.
Presenting themselves as the victims of a violent oppressive state has been a Palestinian strategy since the 80s.
It works because its true.
Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.
Iron Dome and other anti missile systems are constantly prepared to fire. They had multiple batteries ready and set up and ready of Iron dome alone, with heavier long range missiles to. Iron dome only got more extensive and better the more it was used, as they learned how to intercept any incoming missiles on towns or cities with a very high rate of success.
In danger zones, the walls and berns prevent gunfire. schools in rocket zones, bus stops and others are built with reinforced concrete and fortified with bomb shelters or upgraded to be so.
all apartment buildings and homes with or access to reinforced shelters
Radar and rapid air raid alarms, active, maintained and effective.
shelters about made of a sewer pipe, and some T wall where regular, and are providing shelter options within quick access of vulnerable places.
When a rocket was fired, it would be hitting its target in one minute for Tel aviv, some places had under 20 seconds warning of incoming fire. they had prepared for that.
Its not out of lack of effort, Israel takes minimal losses from rocket fire.
jhe90 wrote: Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.
They're low casualty because they're not particularly good rockets, and Israel has a multi-billion dollar flyswatter at the ready. Effort or lack there of isn't really the point. The point is that Palestine is like a fly facing a futuristic bug zapper, and in spite of that Israel feels the need to assert itself against that fly with every kind of bug spray it can muster and Palestinians that would know they can invoke that response on demand. The rockets are not about causing casualties anymore, and haven't been since at least the Second Intifada.
Today it's all about getting Israel in the news killing civilians and the disgusting part is how little the rest of the world cares that the MIT college grad is out punching the homeless in the balls with a rocket powered baseball bat (with stainless steel nails).
jhe90 wrote: Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.
They're low casualty because they're not particularly good rockets, and Israel has a multi-billion dollar flyswatter at the ready. Effort or lack there of isn't really the point. The point is that Palestine is like a fly facing a futuristic bug zapper, and in spite of that Israel feels the need to assert itself against that fly with every kind of bug spray it can muster and Palestinians that would know they can invoke that response on demand. The rockets are not about causing casualties anymore, and haven't been since at least the Second Intifada.
Today it's all about getting Israel in the news killing civilians and the disgusting part is how little the rest of the world cares that the MIT college grad is out punching the homeless in the balls with a rocket powered baseball bat (with stainless steel nails).
The point is the sheer effort IDF and Israel has plowed into protecting its people.
And those rockets can pack at biggest up tp 144KG warheads. sure the basic is like 20 kg but that plus shrapnel in, and the rocket body is a perfectly deadly weapon if the IDF did not have such in depth defenses. Maybe not, but if they do get past, they could do plenty of harm.. there not exactly harmless.
Hamas has plowed there construction into attack tunnels, not rebuilding. lots to rebuild, yet they dig tunnels into israel with hundreds of tons concrete and steel.
THere money for war not there people.
The point is the sheer effort IDF and Israel has plowed into protecting its people.
And those rockets can pack at biggest up tp 144KG warheads. sure the basic is like 20 kg but that plus shrapnel in, and the rocket body is a perfectly deadly weapon if the IDF did not have such in depth defenses. Maybe not, but if they do get past, they could do plenty of harm.. there not exactly harmless.
And the reality is that even before Iron Dome was put in place those rockets weren't killing that many people. A rock on a stick isn't exactly harmless either.
And yeah. Israel put so much effort into protecting it's people they sabotaged the PLO and maneuvered Hamas into power. Israeli geopolitics are some of the most cycnical there are. As much as Palestinian leadership purposefully puts its own people into the firing line to farm sympathy, Israel purposefully does the same because their position is also dependent on sympathy.
The big difference between the two is that Israel's vulnerability has been an illusion since the Six Days War. Absolutely nothing Palestinians do poses a viable threat to the Israeli state. At this point they aren't even a viable threat to the Israeli people except as an end to the ambitions of a bunch of old Israelis still emotionally invested in taking full ownership of the West Bank and by emotionally invested I mean financially invested cause real estate is where the money is in Israel. The Arab world has backed off, paying only lip service to the conflict with the singular exceptions of Lebanon, who views Israel as an existential threat at times (not entirely unwarranted) and Iran who sees Israel as a pseudo-colony of the United States and the West (also not entirely unwarranted from the right frame of reference).
The point is that both sides are victims of their own government, but one side is a lot more complicit in their government's actions than the other if only by virtue of having running water, functioning schools, and the multi-billion dollar defense force.
Hamas has plowed there construction into attack tunnels, not rebuilding.
It's easy to dig a tunnel. All you need is a shovel.
Building requires a whole host of things they can't get enough of because Israel has Gaza under blockade. What little they do have, why bother? Israel will just blow it all down with artillery and bombs next year or the year after cause Hamas doesn't even have to launch rockets to invoke Israeli response (just go back to the OP).
It's one thing to condemn Hamas for being violent aholes, but let's not pretend Palestinians ever had the option of rebuilding. Israel has systematically depopulated Palestinian regions and built over them. They don't want them to rebuild and they put as much effort into ensuring that can't happen as they've put into defense.
So in summary, the various Militant groups who control and lead Palestine are using their own citizens as meat shields for propaganda purposes.
Perhaps the critics of Israel here should devote part of their vitriol and criticism for the Leaders of Palestine who are deliberately getting their own people killed.
Perhaps the critics of Israel here should devote part of their vitriol and criticism for the Leaders of Palestine who are deliberately getting their own people killed.
We do, but I suppose some of us just don't see a modern democratic state with the 30ish odd strongest economy on the planet and a bunch of people in bombed out buildings as having the same level of political agency, and thus assign a lot more blame and condemnation accordingly when one of them kills four to five times as many people as the other in the world's longest and most violent game of red rover.
jhe90 wrote: Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.
They're low casualty because they're not particularly good rockets, and Israel has a multi-billion dollar flyswatter at the ready. Effort or lack there of isn't really the point. The point is that Palestine is like a fly facing a futuristic bug zapper, and in spite of that Israel feels the need to assert itself against that fly with every kind of bug spray it can muster and Palestinians that would know they can invoke that response on demand. The rockets are not about causing casualties anymore, and haven't been since at least the Second Intifada.
Today it's all about getting Israel in the news killing civilians and the disgusting part is how little the rest of the world cares that the MIT college grad is out punching the homeless in the balls with a rocket powered baseball bat (with stainless steel nails).
If terrorists/guerillas whatever were firing rockets into San Diego from Mexico we would respond with B1 strikes followed by the Marines invading Northern Mexico. *
If groups were firing into Russia they would have invaded with more tanks than God (I love that quote).
Don't India and Pakustan occasionally trade heavy artillery fire? I may be reflecting my age on that one.
* If they were firing into New Mexico we would complement them on their efforts to keep the radio active mutants under control.
Perhaps the critics of Israel here should devote part of their vitriol and criticism for the Leaders of Palestine who are deliberately getting their own people killed.
We do, but I suppose some of us just don't see a modern democratic state with the 30ish odd strongest economy on the planet and a bunch of people in bombed out buildings as having the same level of political agency, and thus assign a lot more blame and condemnation accordingly when one of them kills four to five times as many people as the other in the world's longest and most violent game of red rover.
Just so. Neither one is a good guy but it's crazy to play the "both sides are equally bad" card when they're far from on equal footing. With great power comes great responsibility.
A person who brings a child to a violent protest is a bad person, but I'm not going to give a 50/50 blame division to the bad parent and a soldier who shoots a child.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So in summary, the various Militant groups who control and lead Palestine are using their own citizens as meat shields for propaganda purposes.
Perhaps the critics of Israel here should devote part of their vitriol and criticism for the Leaders of Palestine who are deliberately getting their own people killed.
Except it usually works like this:
Israel kills people
Hamas gets people worked up over Israel killing people
Israel kills more people.
Hamas gets people worked up about it
ad infinitum
So, perhaps the critics of the Palestinians here reflect that before Hamas can do any of that, IDF has to commit horrific crimes for them to be indigent about in the first place?
In fact, I think, looking at the American response to just one kid being shot by a cop, Hamas shows remarkable restraint compared to what their reaction would be to a whole family being wiped out by police, or children used as human shields, like IDF has done many times, and continues to do despite Israel declaring that illegal.
If terrorists/guerillas whatever were firing rockets into San Diego from Mexico we would respond with B1 strikes followed by the Marines invading Northern Mexico.
And if those same Marines were gunning down Americans in the streets, see my above statement about cops shooting kids.
Maybe this is not getting through people's skulls, but I'll use your example and adjust for scale so you understand the difference between what you suggest the US would do and what Israel would do.
A check point guard would be shot by parties unknown. The US response would be to nuke Guadalajara. Survivors and relatives would fire rockets into the Mojave. The US would then butcher every man, woman and child in Northern Mexico.
Do you grasp that this level of response would be inappropriate?
jhe90 wrote: Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.
They're low casualty because they're not particularly good rockets, and Israel has a multi-billion dollar flyswatter at the ready. Effort or lack there of isn't really the point. The point is that Palestine is like a fly facing a futuristic bug zapper, and in spite of that Israel feels the need to assert itself against that fly with every kind of bug spray it can muster and Palestinians that would know they can invoke that response on demand. The rockets are not about causing casualties anymore, and haven't been since at least the Second Intifada.
Today it's all about getting Israel in the news killing civilians and the disgusting part is how little the rest of the world cares that the MIT college grad is out punching the homeless in the balls with a rocket powered baseball bat (with stainless steel nails).
The point is the sheer effort IDF and Israel has plowed into protecting its people.
And those rockets can pack at biggest up tp 144KG warheads. sure the basic is like 20 kg but that plus shrapnel in, and the rocket body is a perfectly deadly weapon if the IDF did not have such in depth defenses. Maybe not, but if they do get past, they could do plenty of harm.. there not exactly harmless.
Let's put this in perspective, more people were killed in this one protest event than have been killed by all Hamas rockets from Gaza in the last fifteen years.
Hamas has plowed there construction into attack tunnels, not rebuilding. lots to rebuild, yet they dig tunnels into israel with hundreds of tons concrete and steel.
THere money for war not there people.
Those tunnels aren't just "attack" vectors, a lot of those tunnel networks are economic in nature, given that Gaza is blockaded. But yes, Hamas absolutely does do these things, and nobody is denying that, only the proportion of the response.
Perhaps the critics of Israel here should devote part of their vitriol and criticism for the Leaders of Palestine who are deliberately getting their own people killed.
We do, but I suppose some of us just don't see a modern democratic state with the 30ish odd strongest economy on the planet and a bunch of people in bombed out buildings as having the same level of political agency, and thus assign a lot more blame and condemnation accordingly when one of them kills four to five times as many people as the other in the world's longest and most violent game of red rover.
Especially when there is no need for such criminal murder of civilians. Tear gas, water cannons and so forth, even rubber bullets are used the world over to stop potentially violent protests. So the question is why the Israel government thinks that one true method is to use lethal force. The reason being it gives them an excuse to continue the process of 'ethnic cleansing' of areas. They want Hamas to be in charge, because they know they will react aggressively because the populace think that is the only way to prevent them being oppressed (a natural instinct to fight back). The Israel military gun down hundreds of civilians, the populace demands a response, a few ineffectual rockets are fired, which gives the excuse to expand the borders for 'safety reasons', depopulate them, repopulate them and then start the cycle again. If all the protestors turned up stark naked with hands in the air then the Israeli military would still fire on them because it is part of a wider strategy and manipulation.
jhe90 wrote: Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.
They're low casualty because they're not particularly good rockets, and Israel has a multi-billion dollar flyswatter at the ready. Effort or lack there of isn't really the point. The point is that Palestine is like a fly facing a futuristic bug zapper, and in spite of that Israel feels the need to assert itself against that fly with every kind of bug spray it can muster and Palestinians that would know they can invoke that response on demand. The rockets are not about causing casualties anymore, and haven't been since at least the Second Intifada.
Today it's all about getting Israel in the news killing civilians and the disgusting part is how little the rest of the world cares that the MIT college grad is out punching the homeless in the balls with a rocket powered baseball bat (with stainless steel nails).
If terrorists/guerillas whatever were firing rockets into San Diego from Mexico we would respond with B1 strikes followed by the Marines invading Northern Mexico. *
It's interesting that you brought that now because Hamas has been shooting rockets from the Sinai for a while now and hasn't invaded Egypt yet.
On the contrary, they share intelligence with the Egyptians and they help each other. When ISIS got a bit too loud in the Sinai a few months back Israeli drones and helicopters made strikes against targets in Egyptian territory under Egyptian guidance.
Why work with Egypt on one hand and undermine Fatah to the point of throwing half of Palestinian people into Hamas' open arms? The answer is quite simple.
People still bring up Hamas shooting rockets as justification for the Israeli response should google what proportionality means in regards to the law and war.
I've not heard any of you guys express even a fraction of the vitriol you have for Israel, for the Palestinian Militants. I can't help but notice how you don't use the same emotive language when talking about Hamas et al that you use when talking about Israel's crimes. I'm not even arguing that they're equally to blame, obviously Israel is the First World democratic Nation, and must be held to higher stands than Palestine.
Your responses to me acknowledging that Palestine also deserves some criticism strike me as begrudging.
The stark difference in the tones and emotive language that you use when talking about Israel's crimes vs Palestine's crimes is very telling. Its very clear where your biases lie.
I don't know how to unpack that. You're saying that you concede they're not equally to blame and simultaneously complaining people aren't equally disdainful of their actions.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I've not heard any of you guys express even a fraction of the vitriol you have for Israel, for the Palestinian Militants. I can't help but notice how you don't use the same emotive language when talking about Hamas et al that you use when talking about Israel's crimes. I'm not even arguing that they're equally to blame, obviously Israel is the First World democratic Nation, and must be held to higher stands than Palestine.
Your responses to me acknowledging that Palestine also deserves some criticism strike me as begrudging.
The stark difference in the tones and emotive language that you use when talking about Israel's crimes vs Palestine's crimes is very telling. Its very clear where your biases lie.
Yes, my biases lie with the oppressed peoples of the Earth. It isn't Hamas that has put people in a giant concentration camp because they want their land. It isn't Hamas that blockades the Palestinians to deprive them of medicine and food.
I am biased against genocidal states. Is this a problem?
As I said. Hamas is a terrorist organisation while Israel pretends to be a democratic law abiding country. I don't go after Hamas as much in this thread because it would be like raging about what Al Qeada does every time the US does something wrong. One side is already clearly labelled as such.
Hamas sends women and children to detonate suicide vests.
Hamas sends people to murder Israeli civilians and children in their beds at night.
Hamas fires rockets into Israel on a weekly basis.
Hamas indoctrinates Palestinianian children to hate Jews.
And yet you can't even muster up a teeny weeny bit of vitriol and emotive language when discussing the things that Hamas does.
60 people Hamas send to die and Israel willingly obliged to kill in violation of the law. Agian, one know terrorist organization, other pretend Western state.
The stark difference in the tones and emotive language that you use when talking about Israel's crimes vs Palestine's crimes is very telling. Its very clear where your biases lie.
I don't deny I'm biased against Israel. For much the same reason I'm biased against Nazis. I despise anyone who rules through fear and murder, whether it's Hamas, Nazi Germany, Israel, or the United States. But Israel gets my goat the most, as they wave about how horrible the Nazis were, and how put upon they are, and then turn around and commit acts that belong more to something like Intelligenzaktion Pommern than modern COIN operations.
I don't deny I'm biased against Israel. For much the same reason I'm biased against Nazis. I despise anyone who rules through fear and murder, whether it's Hamas, Nazi Germany, Israel, or the United States. [sni[]
Where more the 50 of them were identified as Hamas terrorists.
Including one at the ripe old age of 3. The fact is that Israel is making gak up here. You may have noticed the first day of this butchery they put pictures up of all the Hamas terrorists they killed. The pictures didn't match some of the names, and in fact, a few were taken at the protest or from the victims social media pages.
Disciple of Fate wrote: 60 people Hamas send to die and Israel willingly obliged to kill in violation of the law. Agian, one know terrorist organization, other pretend Western state.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And yet you can't even muster up a teeny weeny bit of vitriol and emotive language when discussing the things that Hamas does.
Seems like a truly, truly bizarre nitpick, but OK.
It was very, very bad for the Palestinians to have put civilians in harms way! They should feel terrible about that! The parents that brought young children to a situation in which their was a good chance of death or serious injury should feel very, very bad about what they did.
I mean, we agree, and stipulate, that what the Israelis did is an order of magnitude worse. Are you wanting us to soften that language? It was regretful that the Israelis killed those children? I certainly wish they wouldn't use excessive, disproportional force?
Do you see what a super, weird thing you are doing is? You're appear to literally be saying that one party acted worse, and you agree that is so, but we shouldn't emphasize that with our speech.
Disciple of Fate wrote: 60 people Hamas send to die and Israel willingly obliged to kill in violation of the law. Agian, one know terrorist organization, other pretend Western state.
Isn't it to their interest to claim they were ALL civvies?
No, but at the same time he doesn't say they were militants or in any way associated with Hamas militant wing. Remember, Hamas runs things from Charities to Garbage collection.
IDF figures that 25 might have been militants, and the rest were all civies. Which is pretty much in line with their usual 50% civilian casualty rate.
The stark difference in the tones and emotive language that you use when talking about Israel's crimes vs Palestine's crimes is very telling. Its very clear where your biases lie.
I don't deny I'm biased against Israel. For much the same reason I'm biased against Nazis. I despise anyone who rules through fear and murder, whether it's Hamas, Nazi Germany, Israel, or the United States. But Israel gets my goat the most, as they wave about how horrible the Nazis were, and how put upon they are, and then turn around and commit acts that belong more to something like Intelligenzaktion Pommern than modern COIN operations.
OMG.... did you... did you just Godwin Israel??????
Oh thank you for that.
I am really enjoying this thread, awful as its impetus was.
Disciple of Fate wrote: 60 people Hamas send to die and Israel willingly obliged to kill in violation of the law. Agian, one know terrorist organization, other pretend Western state.
I think you have to be careful with assuming just how far you can take this information. As pointed out before Hamas gains political points within its own supporters for claiming people died as martyrs and all that gack they spout. Hence it reinforces the doctrination. In the same way that shooting an ISIS terrorist can reinforce a belief that they are also martyrs. Not many people are going to sacrifice themselves for what is a political ideology if they come out and say there's nothing afterwards, bad luck for getting shot. We can't assume that an activist or supporter is a terrorist. The may be because they get access to better food, medical supplies, persuaded by pointing a gun at their children etc. Depending on the news propoganda they are shown they may not even know they are terrorist organisation. You can't just assume that by being a member that they are the same as the people that commit atrocities. People are individuals and should be treated as such.
A comparable example would be the NRA. Just because there are a few members that are nut cases, you don't send in the US military to wipe out the local meeting members because it's a just a bit too close to the local school. The assumption that because there a few nut cases in the NRA then live fire on the rest is fine because that makes them all guilty by association.
Where more the 50 of them were identified as Hamas terrorists.
Including one at the ripe old age of 3. The fact is that Israel is making gak up here. You may have noticed the first day of this butchery they put pictures up of all the Hamas terrorists they killed. The pictures didn't match some of the names, and in fact, a few were taken at the protest or from the victims social media pages.
If you're implying I'm a liar, that's slander, not an argument.
That one was in doubt, two stories came out still sad.
One was the child had a pre existing illness, so why they took out to a protest of burning tyres and tear gas...
The other was caused by exposure to tear gas... Which begs why you take your 3 year old child to a protest you know where it could get nasty and there's a gak ton of tear gas, smoke and such in the air in first place. And close ernough to lines that your in the gas zones.
Either story plain sad but why would you take your child to a protest you know could turn nasty in seconds!
Where more the 50 of them were identified as Hamas terrorists.
Including one at the ripe old age of 3. The fact is that Israel is making gak up here. You may have noticed the first day of this butchery they put pictures up of all the Hamas terrorists they killed. The pictures didn't match some of the names, and in fact, a few were taken at the protest or from the victims social media pages.
If you're implying I'm a liar, that's slander, not an argument.
That one was in doubt, two stories came out still sad.
One was the child had a pre existing illness, so why they took out to a protest of burning tyres and tear gas...
The other was caused by exposure to tear gas... Which begs why you take your 3 year old child to a protest you know where it could get nasty and there's a gak ton of tear gas, smoke and such in the air in first place. And close ernough to lines that your in the gas zones.
Either story plain sad but why would you take your child to a protest you know could turn nasty in seconds!
Because Hamas brainwashes it's people that it is their absolute duty to do crap like this.
Their own damn charter states that that Judgement Day will not arrive until the Jews are all killed.
If you're implying I'm a liar, that's slander, not an argument.
Ha, so NOW you care about ad hominem? Not so nice is it, when its used against YOU? Keep that in mind in future, the next time you feel like throwing around accusations of racism willy nilly.
Edit: Some context, for the benefit of confused onlookers:
Xenomancers wrote: honestly don't care how desperate a people is - the true blind hate this culture has against Israel to elect hamas shows you exactly how this will end.
Yeahj, with Israel committing even greater war crimes while racists like you try to justify it with fantasies like that.
BTW: the Israeli press is running a story atm about how Hamas offered at least a cease fire, and the Israelis told them to go to hell. Tell me, who want's to murder whom again?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I've not heard any of you guys express even a fraction of the vitriol you have for Israel, for the Palestinian Militants. I can't help but notice how you don't use the same emotive language when talking about Hamas et al that you use when talking about Israel's crimes. I'm not even arguing that they're equally to blame, obviously Israel is the First World democratic Nation, and must be held to higher stands than Palestine.
Your responses to me acknowledging that Palestine also deserves some criticism strike me as begrudging.
The stark difference in the tones and emotive language that you use when talking about Israel's crimes vs Palestine's crimes is very telling. Its very clear where your biases lie.
That is probably because the Palestinian militants don't cause anywhere near the level of innocent casualties that the IDF does, combined with Israel being rightfully held to much higher standards than a bunch of terrorists. Now don't get me wrong. I don't have an ounce of sympathy for Palestinian terrorist organisations. I fully support Israel in its struggle against terrorism. I just don't support the methods that they use in that struggle. I think the methods they use are unworthy of a free, democratic nation such as Israel. And it is especially shocking because it is Israel, which has a history of persecution itself and which I like to think of as a wonderful example of development in the Middle East. To see them devolve into apartheid and ethnic cleansing just makes me really sad. Basically, the Palestinian terrorist's crimes are bad, but they are terrorists, so that is to be expected. So when Israel's crimes are actually worse than those of the terrorists they are fighting, that is really shocking, which leads to more emotion on my part. I guess I am more vitriolic towards Israel than to Hamas because I care more about Israel than I do about Hamas. I want to see Israel succeed and do well, and currently they are heading in the exact opposite direction of 'well'.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I've not heard any of you guys express even a fraction of the vitriol you have for Israel, for the Palestinian Militants. I can't help but notice how you don't use the same emotive language when talking about Hamas et al that you use when talking about Israel's crimes. I'm not even arguing that they're equally to blame, obviously Israel is the First World democratic Nation, and must be held to higher stands than Palestine.
Your responses to me acknowledging that Palestine also deserves some criticism strike me as begrudging.
The stark difference in the tones and emotive language that you use when talking about Israel's crimes vs Palestine's crimes is very telling. Its very clear where your biases lie.
That is probably because the Palestinian militants don't cause anywhere near the level of innocent casualties that the IDF does, combined with Israel being rightfully held to much higher standards than a bunch of terrorists. Now don't get me wrong. I don't have an ounce of sympathy for Palestinian terrorist organisations. I fully support Israel in its struggle against terrorism. I just don't support the methods that they use in that struggle. I think the methods they use are unworthy of a free, democratic nation such as Israel. And it is especially shocking because it is Israel, which has a history of persecution itself and which I like to think of as a wonderful example of development in the Middle East. To see them devolve into apartheid and ethnic cleansing just makes me really sad.
Basically, the Palestinian terrorist's crimes are bad, but they are terrorists, so that is to be expected. So when Israel's crimes are actually worse than those of the terrorists they are fighting, that is really shocking, which leads to more emotion on my part. I guess I am more vitriolic towards Israel than to Hamas because I care more about Israel than I do about Hamas. I want to see Israel succeed and do well, and currently they are heading in the exact opposite direction of 'well'.
I am in total agreement with that comment.
This is not a situation that has been stumbled upon either, but a systemic long term policy. Israel does not want peace with Palestinains, they want for there to be no Palestinians. Slowly piece by piece the land is taken over, it is actually a Biblical principle from the Book of Joshua.
No. But it was nice of you to gloat, and look like an even bigger hypocrite. Gonna address how reality eviscerated you on your other points? Or are you going to hide behind a single point now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palestinians are irrelevant now except as meat Shields. Israeli and Iranian forces are starting to regularly trade fire. They are ants in a ring where Giants are wrestling.
No. But it was nice of you to gloat, and look like an even bigger hypocrite. Gonna address how reality eviscerated you on your other points? Or are you going to hide behind a single point now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The new charter explicitly mentions that it doesn't recognise the Sate of Israel or cede any rights (AKA rights of return) making in effect their recognition of the 1967 frontiers completly worthless. It's basically Hamas admitting that Israel control that territory, which they do and they don't need to say it. It's the statement of an evidence. With such statement, Netanyahu, despite being a warmonger of genocidal proportion and one of the most despicable political leader of Israel history, is right to say that this new charter is purely for show and look conciliant. Then again, all of the Hamas charters have been for show and ignored for convenience at various point in its history.
No. But it was nice of you to gloat, and look like an even bigger hypocrite. Gonna address how reality eviscerated you on your other points? Or are you going to hide behind a single point now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The new charter explicitly mentions that it doesn't recognise the Sate of Israel or cede any rights (AKA rights of return) making in effect their recognition of the 1967 frontiers completly worthless. It's basically Hamas admitting that Israel control that territory, which they do and they don't need to say it. It's the statement of an evidence. With such statement, Netanyahu, despite being a warmonger of genocidal proportion and one of the most despicable political leader of Israel history, is right to say that this new charter is purely for show and look conciliant. Then again, all of the Hamas charters have been for show and ignored for convenience at various point in its history.
So wouldn't you agree that it'd be better for everyone that Gaza returns to a non-Islamist quasi-terrorist government?
Where more the 50 of them were identified as Hamas terrorists.
Including one at the ripe old age of 3. The fact is that Israel is making gak up here. You may have noticed the first day of this butchery they put pictures up of all the Hamas terrorists they killed. The pictures didn't match some of the names, and in fact, a few were taken at the protest or from the victims social media pages.
If you're implying I'm a liar, that's slander, not an argument.
That one was in doubt, two stories came out still sad.
One was the child had a pre existing illness, so why they took out to a protest of burning tyres and tear gas...
The other was caused by exposure to tear gas... Which begs why you take your 3 year old child to a protest you know where it could get nasty and there's a gak ton of tear gas, smoke and such in the air in first place. And close ernough to lines that your in the gas zones.
Either story plain sad but why would you take your child to a protest you know could turn nasty in seconds!
Because Hamas brainwashes it's people that it is their absolute duty to do crap like this.
Their own damn charter states that that Judgement Day will not arrive until the Jews are all killed.
True. The fact you would put your child at such risk boggles the mind. It's not like they did not know exactly what was going to happen...
No. But it was nice of you to gloat, and look like an even bigger hypocrite. Gonna address how reality eviscerated you on your other points? Or are you going to hide behind a single point now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The new charter explicitly mentions that it doesn't recognise the Sate of Israel or cede any rights (AKA rights of return) making in effect their recognition of the 1967 frontiers completly worthless. It's basically Hamas admitting that Israel control that territory, which they do and they don't need to say it. It's the statement of an evidence. With such statement, Netanyahu, despite being a warmonger of genocidal proportion and one of the most despicable political leader of Israel history, is right to say that this new charter is purely for show and look conciliant. Then again, all of the Hamas charters have been for show and ignored for convenience at various point in its history.
Window dressing. There true aims have not changed.
This is like the whole ISIS name game. They have not changed who they are deep down just repainted the gate.
Hamas only wants peace so it has time to prepare for wars.
True. The fact you would put your child at such risk boggles the mind. It's not like they did not know exactly what was going to happen...
Knew it all and still did it.
How do you know this. You are looking at it from the blinkered perspective of our free press and more open reporting and hence assume that someone in Gaza *knew* what was going to happen? Yet their access to such information is likely much more restrictive both a from a poverty perspective and what is allowed to be broadcast. Such people are simply not going to be as aware of the wider picture. It's easy from our perspective to be critical of an individual based on our better knowledge of the political landscape. For all we know some of these people were just told that there was going to be free handouts of baby formula and so on.
We know Hamas is in effect a terrorist organisation. We can't do anything about that. Their support comes from people that think that they are the only option available to them. Mass shootings drives more people to being extremely anti-Israel because they think it is the only way to retaliate. To break Hamas that support needs to be broken and you can't do that using a barrel of a gun. We tried that with NI and it didn't work, it just made things worse.
Instead you need to bring people together to see that there is another way. Instead of shooting people you could use tear gas/water cannon on 'rowdy' sections but on peaceful queuing sections you hand out food, baby formula, medicines etc. In this way you break the cycle, no one comes away injured and the propoganda cycle works less because it breaks the narrative. You rinse and repeat. People start to recognise that there is another way that they can have better lives and that message from Hamas will be wrong. There will be casualties inevitably especially as Hamas try and break that approach as their influence waits and they get more desperate; but then that would just be as in any war. A case in point was a recent interview of someone in Afghanistan. 10 years ago after a terrorist attack it would the US/wests fault, yet in a recent attack somebody publicly condemned the terrorists and that they weren't part of what the country stood for showing a step change in people's perceptions as they got use to peace and that the other side wasn't the monster the terrorists groups made them out to be. This can break down walls and people can start to share the land equally and live happily amongst each other regardless of faith/colour/creed etc.
Hamas will not take this step because it breaks their influence. The issue with the Israeli government is that they are in a much better position to action this sort of message yet they generally fail to do so which any sensible western government would want to achieve to reduce innocent casualties. But they consistently fail to do so and in fact try and escalate the situation. That would indicate that they have only one motive and that is to ritually displace people so they can expand their own territory. However by doing so they continually escalate the level of violence in the region which just like in NI will result in a terrible human tragedy before anything is done.
True. The fact you would put your child at such risk boggles the mind. It's not like they did not know exactly what was going to happen...
Knew it all and still did it.
How do you know this. You are looking at it from the blinkered perspective of our free press and more open reporting and hence assume that someone in Gaza *knew* what was going to happen? Yet their access to such information is likely much more restrictive both a from a poverty perspective and what is allowed to be broadcast. Such people are simply not going to be as aware of the wider picture. It's easy from our perspective to be critical of an individual based on our better knowledge of the political landscape. For all we know some of these people were just told that there was going to be free handouts of baby formula and so on.
We know Hamas is in effect a terrorist organisation. We can't do anything about that. Their support comes from people that think that they are the only option available to them. Mass shootings drives more people to being extremely anti-Israel because they think it is the only way to retaliate. To break Hamas that support needs to be broken and you can't do that using a barrel of a gun. We tried that with NI and it didn't work, it just made things worse.
Instead you need to bring people together to see that there is another way. Instead of shooting people you could use tear gas/water cannon on 'rowdy' sections but on peaceful queuing sections you hand out food, baby formula, medicines etc. In this way you break the cycle, no one comes away injured and the propoganda cycle works less because it breaks the narrative. You rinse and repeat. People start to recognise that there is another way that they can have better lives and that message from Hamas will be wrong. There will be casualties inevitably especially as Hamas try and break that approach as their influence waits and they get more desperate; but then that would just be as in any war. A case in point was a recent interview of someone in Afghanistan. 10 years ago after a terrorist attack it would the US/wests fault, yet in a recent attack somebody publicly condemned the terrorists and that they weren't part of what the country stood for showing a step change in people's perceptions as they got use to peace and that the other side wasn't the monster the terrorists groups made them out to be. This can break down walls and people can start to share the land equally and live happily amongst each other regardless of faith/colour/creed etc.
Hamas will not take this step because it breaks their influence. The issue with the Israeli government is that they are in a much better position to action this sort of message yet they generally fail to do so which any sensible western government would want to achieve to reduce innocent casualties. But they consistently fail to do so and in fact try and escalate the situation. That would indicate that they have only one motive and that is to ritually displace people so they can expand their own territory. However by doing so they continually escalate the level of violence in the region which just like in NI will result in a terrible human tragedy before anything is done.
As a sidenote, Hamas doesn't only get support because people view them as the only way to fight back against Israel. The militant wing is just one part of Hamas. They also do a lot of charity and provide basic social services to poor people in Gaza (which in Gaza is pretty much everyone, thanks to Israel). That is also what gets them a lot of goodwill with the people of Gaza.
So - spouting the same religious drivel and a shared will to annihilate Israel - that has nothing to do with it? A likely story. Palestinians been attacking Israel since long before Hamas. Israel - being a member of the UN - has probably given 100 times the relief to the Palestinian people as Hamas. It's gotten them no where.
You'd think Hamas using the people it claims to want to protect as human shields and firing from hospitals would balance that out...wouldn't it? Then again when you see it as martyrdom - you don't exactly see that as a bad thing - when you should.
Xenomancers wrote: So - spouting the same religious drivel and a shared will to annihilate Israel - that has nothing to do with it? A likely story. Palestinians been attacking Israel since long before Hamas. Israel - being a member of the UN - has probably given 100 times the relief to the Palestinian people as Hamas. It's gotten them no where.
Hrm, methinks we have an...uninformed view of Hamas.
Yes, Hamas does bad things, has deplorable rhetoric, has engaged in shocking acts of violence, and is full of terrible people.
That said, they're as popular as they are because it is Hamas men who come around and take away the garbage every week, it is Hamas who opened and runs the school your 6 year old goes to. It is Hamas to who runs the clinic on your block. Your unemployed neighbor affords food and rent because Hamas pays it. When Israel blockades Gaza by sea and Egypt closes their crossings, it is Hamas who smuggles in food. It's hard to be anti-Hamas for many at that point.
The overwhelming bulk of Hamas funding has historically gone to social services. There's a book by a dude named David Phillips called "from bullets to ballots" that details a lot of this, noting that during the 90's about 85% of its budget went to social services.
Then, when Fatah stands by or is incapable (as many outside powers have gone to great lengths to ensure), when the Israeli's erect walls, build settlements and outposts where they please, set up checkpoints and restrict movement between Palestinian towns, blockades Gaza, etc, the people they see fighting back (in their eyes at least) are the dudes from Hamas.
That's how they achieved power and where they draw their support from. Thats where they get recruits for the military wing.
Whether you agree with the rhetoric or not, those are powerful and *practical* draws.
Xenomancers wrote: So - spouting the same religious drivel and a shared will to annihilate Israel - that has nothing to do with it? A likely story. Palestinians been attacking Israel since long before Hamas. Israel - being a member of the UN - has probably given 100 times the relief to the Palestinian people as Hamas. It's gotten them no where.
Hrm, methinks we have an...uninformed view of Hamas.
Yes, Hamas does bad things, has deplorable rhetoric, has engaged in shocking acts of violence, and is full of terrible people.
That said, they're as popular as they are because it is Hamas men who come around and take away the garbage every week, it is Hamas who opened and runs the school your 6 year old goes to. It is Hamas to who runs the clinic on your block. Your unemployed neighbor affords food and rent because Hamas pays it. When Israel blockades Gaza by sea and Egypt closes their crossings, it is Hamas who smuggles in food. It's hard to be anti-Hamas for many at that point.
The overwhelming bulk of Hamas funding has historically gone to social services. There's a book by a dude named David Phillips called "from bullets to ballots" that details a lot of this, noting that during the 90's about 85% of its budget went to social services.
Then, when Fatah stands by or is incapable (as many outside powers have gone to great lengths to ensure), when the Israeli's erect walls, build settlements and outposts where they please, set up checkpoints and restrict movement between Palestinian towns, blockades Gaza, etc, the people they see fighting back (in their eyes at least) are the dudes from Hamas.
That's how they achieved power and where they draw their support from. Thats where they get recruits for the military wing.
Whether you agree with the rhetoric or not, those are powerful and *practical* draws.
Serious question - have you reviewed Hamas ledgers? How do you know anything about what Hamas spends it's money on? It's MFing terrorist organization. Not to say they don't hand out food and stuff - that is a great way to recruit more terrorist - I am not going to argue they don't do that but come on...where are you getting these %ages. Is there any way that is actually real data? I really don't think so.
The point I am making though is. Hamas practices the use of human shields - fires from schools and hospitals. Yet they still have the support of most palestinians. Why? Religious extremism. In the end - that is the most important factor here and no amount of good will, playing nice, ect is going to make any difference. Israel has come to terms with that. The west - has not. It really is time we come to terms with that. You can not reason with religious extremism.
Not to say Israel doesn't have it's share of religious extremist - Israel is set up as a Jewish state (which I don't agree with). You just don't see any Israelis using Civilians as human shields - true they don't need to - but they also know - it wouldn't work - they would just shoot through the civilians without hesitation.
Xeno... i think Vaktathi's point is that the Hamas does tangible real world things for them... hence their support. Not necessarily just because of religious extremism.
Most people are pragmatic... hence the whole mindset of "yeah... Hitler and Mussolini were bad... but, at least the trains ran on time".
It's also pretty pitiful to credit Hamas with that Aid. True most Palestinians probably don't know this but a huge chunk of Hamas money comes from foreign aid - hamas gives the people just enough to survive and spends the rest on weapons and to fund terrorism in other places. Hamas is exploiting Palestinians on a regular basis.
Serious question - have you reviewed Hamas ledgers? How do you know anything about what Hamas spends it's money on?
No, but I havent reviewed the sum total US/EU/Russian/etc budgets either. I referenced figures from those who professionally study this sort of thing and who would have access to the information.
It's MFing terrorist organization.
sure, that doesnt mean those other things arent also true.
Not to say they don't hand out food and stuff - that is a great way to recruit more terrorist - I am not going to argue they don't do that but come on...where are you getting these %ages.
I directly gave you the name of a book and author...
Is there any way that is actually real data? I really don't think so.
Well, if you have any countersources to debate and review, I'm happy to discuss them.
The point I am making though is. Hamas practices the use of human shields - fires from schools and hospitals. Yet they still have the support of most palestinians. Why? Religious extremism. In the end - that is the most important factor here and no amount of good will, playing nice, ect is going to make any difference. Israel has come to terms with that. The west - has not. It really is time we come to terms with that. You can not reason with religious extremism.
Lets be a little realistic about this.
First, when you're at a massive material, technological, logistical, organizational, informational, industrial, and agricultural disadvantage, that leaves you with limited options. We see human shields, randomly aimed rocket attacks, and suicide bombings as unconsciounable things. Well, it's not like the Palestinians have any other tools at their disposal given the above disadvantages. When people have little to lose and few tools, they find such things less abhorrent than they would otherwise, Religious extremism is just the vehicle at that point, not the driver.
As for firing from hospitals and crowded urban areas and whatnot, again, by Western standards, thats deplorable, and rightly so. However, from the Palestinian perspective, again holding all the above disadvantages true, well, these become...less so. No force dealing with all the above disadvantages is going to go out and fight a pitched battle it will lose totally, immediately, and decisively. They are fighting by pretty standard urban partisan tactics here, the same sort of stuff seen in Poland and the USSR during WW2 or in Vietnam and dozens of other conflicts and absolutely seen in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria on *all* sides. Similarly, also its not like theres much room to manuever, particularly in Gaza. Gaza is a tiny area, 141 square miles, look at it on Google Earth, there's very little open area that isnt near civilian structures, and the place has a higher population density than Chicago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:Xeno... i think Vaktathi's point is that the Hamas does tangible real world things for them... hence their support. Not necessarily just because of religious extremism.
Most people are pragmatic... hence the whole mindset of "yeah... Hitler and Mussolini were bad... but, at least the trains ran on time".
^
We don't have to like Hamas, but there are practical reasons why they enjoy support. They may be counterproductive and self destructive in the long run, but when you're more worried about making rent and eating, you're probably not gonna hassle the dudes who are paying your rent.
Frazzled wrote:Hamas also murders anyone who disagrees so there's that.
Alternatively hard to have a government in that situation.
Xenomancers wrote: It's also pretty pitiful to credit Hamas with that Aid. True most Palestinians probably don't know this but a huge chunk of Hamas money comes from foreign aid - hamas gives the people just enough to survive and spends the rest on weapons and to fund terrorism in other places. Hamas is exploiting Palestinians on a regular basis.
You really should get your sources straight on that.
Hamas filled the void between an ineffective Palestinian authority and an unwilling Israeli state to provide for the people who lived in the Palestinian limbo (especially in Gaza, as I've mentioned previously on this thread the West Bank has something more resembling a functioning economy).
When poor Palestinians wanted education, healthcare, food or housing Hamas was the only one who provided it for them. Hell, at the beginning Hamas was propped up and received Israeli funds purely on the basis that it was a counterweight to the secular PA (run by then PLO, that later became Fatah) and Israel was totally cool with keeping the Palestinians divided and thus weak.
And Hamas can't receive a penny in foreign aid, because it's considered a terror organisation by just about everyone in the planet. It depends on Qatari and Iranian funds (as well as wealthy individuals in UAE, KSA, etc.)
Hamas started and for the most part is a giant welfare organisation with a military wing.
I think that a certain amount of historical perspective should be retained here.
In 2006, Hezbollah lobbed literally thousands of missiles into Israel, killing several dozen and wounding literally thousands. In 2008, there were rocket attacks around the clock from Hamas for a number of months, with about half that number of casualties again. In other words, the relative immunity of Israel to this form of attack thanks to their multi-billion dollar defences is actually reasonably new. I've been posting on Dakka for longer than they've had time to start feeling reasonably secure.
Frankly, even if I was fine and everyone else I knew was completely safe too; sending me scrambling for a bomb shelter four times a week for six months would not engender me to look charitably upon the groups responsible. And I doubt many Israelis are in such a wonderful position as that.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/a-look-inside-israels-bomb-shelters-photos-2014-8
So yes. I agree with BaronIveagh's original point about how the Israeli response to this border incursion thing was disproportionate. I agree that frankly, the actions of the Israeli military are waaaay out of line (that sniper video was disgusting), and that yes, Israel should be held to a higher standard that bleeding Hamas (who really are several degrees worse). I condemn it utterly on grounds of moral irresponsibility that these soldiers who are heavily equipped and safe from retribution are sitting there taking bloody pot shots! There's no way to handwave or justify that away. It's disgusting and should be judged accordingly.
At the same time I am keenly aware however, that moral judgements on the internet a continent away detached from all context are extremely easy. And that had I been in Israel since 2000 enduring the kind of tit for tat casualties and hatred, having endured hundreds of collective hours sitting in a shelter and waiting for an all clear; I would likely have a very different and far more laissez-faire perspective on the whole thing. Because that's morality for you; generally subjective based on our own experiences and perceptions.
Xenomancers wrote: You just don't see any Israelis using Civilians as human shields - true they don't need to - but they also know - it wouldn't work - they would just shoot through the civilians without hesitation.
IDF Soldiers Convicted of Using 11-year-old as Human Shield in Gaza
Also, just because a political party has a militant wing, does not mean you should not engage politically in order to resolve the conflict.
Sinn Fein was the political wing of the IRA, yet when they and the UK government sat down and actually negotiated, in good faith, a resolution that was satisfactory to both sides, that militant organisation disappeared (for the most part, there were splinter factions) and Sinn Fein just became a political party.
Xenomancers wrote: You just don't see any Israelis using Civilians as human shields - true they don't need to - but they also know - it wouldn't work - they would just shoot through the civilians without hesitation.
And they condemn and punish their own for doing so in the rare cases it occurs. This more of less strengthens my argument.
No, your argument was that Israeli's don't do that. But they do.
Punishing them after the fact is not good enough. Israel's approach has created the environment and mindset that leads to such practices, along with trained soldiers laughing and filming shooting unarmed people, including reporters and children.
And they condemn and punish their own for doing so in the rare cases it occurs. This more of less strengthens my argument.
No, your argument was that Israeli's don't do that. But they do.
Punishing them after the fact is not good enough. Israel's approach has created the environment and mindset that leads to such practices, along with trained soldiers laughing and filming shooting unarmed people, including reporters and children.
A few Israelis have done that - it is not policy - they condemn it. It is expected some people will misbehave in war. You could find equally atrocious acts in any modern military - what matters is how these countries deal with it when it happens and it's proven to be true.
It is very true that Israel does not practice the use of human shields. It's intellectually dishonest to say that they do.
Xenomancers wrote: You don't think Hamas gets it's hands on the money going to the PA?
Israel collects all the big ticket taxes for the PA. Payroll, all business related, property, etc. I'm sure that if you have any indication that they're financing Hamas they'll be thrilled to know.
Now, if you mean that some public servant that happens to be a Hamas member gets paid through the Israeli tax service, then that's probably true. Will they skim off the top of many things going to Gaza? of course they will. But that's peanuts on the grand scheme of things.
Actually the recent Hamas approach to Fatah (leading to a sort-of truce between them) is basically because Hamas was running dry after the Qatari tap closed.
Oh, and on the issue of human shields, some reading.
Xenomancers wrote: You don't think Hamas gets it's hands on the money going to the PA?
Israel collects all the big ticket taxes for the PA. Payroll, all business related, property, etc. I'm sure that if you have any indication that they're financing Hamas they'll be thrilled to know.
Now, if you mean that some public servant that happens to be a Hamas member gets paid through the Israeli tax service, then that's probably true. Will they skim off the top of many things going to Gaza? of course they will. But that's peanuts on the grand scheme of things.
Actually the recent Hamas approach to Fatah (leading to a sort-of truce between them) is basically because Hamas was running dry after the Qatari tap closed.
Oh, and on the issue of human shields, some reading.
www.btselem.org/human_shields
Hamas is essentially the mob that is also the government. Fairly easy for them to extort money from everyone - and they do it. You'd be ignorant to think they don't do it. This isn't the kind of stuff they talk about on CNN.
Frazzled wrote: Hamas also murders anyone who disagrees so there's that.
That is actually another reason why Hamas is so popular.
If you stop supporting Hamas, then they will take away your house (which may very well have been paid for by Hamas in the first place), you will have to pay ridiculous prices to get food (which usually is supplied by Hamas), you will have trouble getting a school or a hospital for your kids (those are usually run by Hamas), and last but not least their thugs will be beating you and your family up, intimidate your friends in abandoning you, prevent you from getting work anywhere and generally do their best to make your life miserable. And if you openly resist them they will just kill you.
With the choice being between a life with cheap or free food, housing and healthcare or a life of suffering, beatings and being ostracised from society, it is not difficult to see why Hamas is popular. They win a lot of support by charity, and what they can't win by charity they win through intimidation.
Hamas basically is a political party, terrorist organisation, criminal syndicate and shadow government all in one, covered with an extremist religious sauce.
They are a really really bad bunch. But I don't think they are entirely unreasonable. They have moderate elements as well, that could be open to negotiation.
Xenomancers wrote: You don't think Hamas gets it's hands on the money going to the PA?
Israel collects all the big ticket taxes for the PA. Payroll, all business related, property, etc. I'm sure that if you have any indication that they're financing Hamas they'll be thrilled to know.
Now, if you mean that some public servant that happens to be a Hamas member gets paid through the Israeli tax service, then that's probably true. Will they skim off the top of many things going to Gaza? of course they will. But that's peanuts on the grand scheme of things.
Actually the recent Hamas approach to Fatah (leading to a sort-of truce between them) is basically because Hamas was running dry after the Qatari tap closed.
Oh, and on the issue of human shields, some reading.
www.btselem.org/human_shields
Hamas is essentially the mob that is also the government. Fairly easy for them to extort money from everyone - and they do it. You'd be ignorant to think they don't do it. This isn't the kind of stuff they talk about on CNN.
They're the government on a destitute part of the Palestinian territories.
Barely enough to keep the lights on (something that's quite a challenge in Gaza)
Ketara wrote: At the same time I am keenly aware however, that moral judgements on the internet a continent away detached from all context are extremely easy. And that had I been in Israel since 2000 enduring the kind of tit for tat casualties and hatred, having endured hundreds of collective hours sitting in a shelter and waiting for an all clear; I would likely have a very different and far more laissez-faire perspective on the whole thing. Because that's morality for you; generally subjective based on our own experiences and perceptions.
Yes, okay, you would support genocide if you had to go through the meagre reprisals that the afflicted group could muster. That's... good to know. Thank you.
As a sidenote, Hamas doesn't only get support because people view them as the only way to fight back against Israel. The militant wing is just one part of Hamas. They also do a lot of charity and provide basic social services to poor people in Gaza (which in Gaza is pretty much everyone, thanks to Israel). That is also what gets them a lot of goodwill with the people of Gaza.
As usual, the public services provided by Hamas are part of their recruitment strategy and how they grew up to challenge Fatah. By controlling the schools, they gained access to a new generation to spread their propaganda. History classes in Palestenian territory are notorious for its propaganda. It's filled with inaccuracies and downright lies to cement the idea that Palestenian are virtuous people and Israeli monsters and that the only sollution is fight and martyrdom. Compared to the history lessons of Israeli and Arab public school, they are atrocious. Their history lesons are even more biased than that of Israel religious schools which are notorious for its lies and propaganda. They can also enforce islamic and nationalist values in the population to better control and motivate them. By controlling the hospitals they favor access to the families of their fighters and supporters. This leads a lot of people into their arms to simply save and provide for their families. One most not forget that Palestenians are also fighting against each other a lot. The conflict between Fatah and Hamas have harmed the population a lot and each of thiese groups are supported by a cloud of smaller organisation which have more in common to mobster gangs than political parties. Security within the palestenian territory is extremely tenuous even without Israel in the picture.
Ironically, Israel current leadership needs an ennemy like Hamas and by extansion Iran. The ultra-orthodox community is shrinking within Israel and its privileges are questionned more and more. Secular Judaism is on the rise within the country. Netanyahu and his cronies, who rely on an alliance with those ultra-orthodox, are also in trouble due to corruption and their popularity falling quickly. All this warmongering from the Israel government during the events in Gaza and the Syrian Civil War is theatrics to win the upcomming election by scarring the population in the arms of its current leader. If they lose those elections, they could face prison and loss of privileges.
Ketara wrote: At the same time I am keenly aware however, that moral judgements on the internet a continent away detached from all context are extremely easy. And that had I been in Israel since 2000 enduring the kind of tit for tat casualties and hatred, having endured hundreds of collective hours sitting in a shelter and waiting for an all clear; I would likely have a very different and far more laissez-faire perspective on the whole thing. Because that's morality for you; generally subjective based on our own experiences and perceptions.
Yes, okay, you would support genocide if you had to go through the meagre reprisals that the afflicted group could muster. That's... good to know. Thank you.
I'm shocked to hear that you support running over the entire Israeli population with a large combine harvester. Shocked I say!
...you know, writing really inaccurate misleading representations of other people's statements can be surprisingly good fun. I can see why you do it.
Ketara wrote: At the same time I am keenly aware however, that moral judgements on the internet a continent away detached from all context are extremely easy. And that had I been in Israel since 2000 enduring the kind of tit for tat casualties and hatred, having endured hundreds of collective hours sitting in a shelter and waiting for an all clear; I would likely have a very different and far more laissez-faire perspective on the whole thing. Because that's morality for you; generally subjective based on our own experiences and perceptions.
Yes, okay, you would support genocide if you had to go through the meagre reprisals that the afflicted group could muster. That's... good to know. Thank you.
I'm shocked to hear that you support running over the entire Israeli population with a large combine harvester. Shocked I say!
...you know, writing really inaccurate misleading representations of other people's statements can be surprisingly good fun. I can see why you do it.
Saying that you would hold different beliefs in different circumstances is not super useful, particularly when it comes to Israel's campaign of genocide. It's just dropping chaff everywhere.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its disingenuous to characterise the threat that Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups pose to Israel as "meagre".
It's actually fully accurate. Hamas does not have the capability to be more than a nuisance. It has no serious armed forces. Home-made rockets are not terribly effective weapons. Of course, should they decide to take up suicide bombing again there would likely be a higher body count but they quit with that because of what the rest of the world thought.
Hamas is, objectively speaking, not able to put up sufficient military might to contend with Israeli armed forces.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah but somehow they buy everyone's house and feed everyone. Where is the money coming from?
Told you before. A few years back it was mostly Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar, now those two main sponsors are gone it's all down to the third: Iran and whatever oil sheikh they can get a few hundred million from. That's doesn't qualify at international aid as you put it before.
Still on the grand scheme of things: barely enough to keep the lights on as it were.
Saying that you would hold different beliefs in different circumstances is not super useful, particularly when it comes to Israel's campaign of genocide.
And.....making provocative misleading representations of other people's words is? You think that that leads to productive, friendly conversations?
It's just dropping chaff everywhere.
Errr...you might think you're on some super secret New World Order Forum, where what we say all has meaningful impacts upon the course of human affairs worldwide, but I'm afraid this is a chat thread in the OT of a toy soldiers forum. I'm using empathetic reasoning to mull over why what might appear to be clear cut obvious moral situations in my shoes, could be regarded with less concern in the relevant part of the world. Completely on topic.
Unless by calling it 'chaff', you mean I'm drawing attention away from discussing How Bad Israel Is? You're outraged you had to scroll past a whole paragraph of someone considering what it is that might make a segment of the Israeli population less worried about the moral aspect than they are? Because it distracts from the super serious business of filling up page 19 with declarations of how bad shooting people is?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah but somehow they buy everyone's house and feed everyone. Where is the money coming from?
From the same sources almost every Sunni terrorist group gets its money. That is from so-called US allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states. Not officially from their governments of course, but from wealthy oil sheiks, salafi and wahhabi mosques and other private persons and institutions. I am sure they also get money through a lot of other sources (such as Iran, and their Hezbollah buddies to the north), but donations is undoubtedly a big source of income for them.
Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
We've seen how well that concept worked in Iraq...Afghanistan...in Syria...
More to the point, they're a bit player harming almost nobody but their own people in practical terms. What damage they do to the Israeli's is (on a nation state level and increasingly in practical terms) is superficial at best.
For whom would it be worth it to get involved in bloody urban guerilla warfare to root out Hamas? And would what inevitably arises from its ashes be any better? Recent history generally shows that as soon as one group is knocked out, another even more brutal one arises. Already happened with the PLO, once Fatah was crippled, Hamas arose in its wake.
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
This is what happened last time America tried that;
Oh, and they did appeal it, calling it unfair of the courts to prohibit them from using children as human shields. Despite court rulings, they were doing it as recent as March of this year.
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
Because every time that anyone has tried to end it, Israel has killed the replacements. Efforts by Fatah to eliminate Hamas has been crushed hard by Israel and the United States. You do grasp that THEY PUT HAMAS THERE because Fatah had given up on terrorism and they were not happy with that.
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers?
I don't know. Why is Al-Qaeda still around? Mexican Drug Cartels? The Mob?
Turns out that eliminating non-state actors is a monumentally hard task. Moreso when said actor proclaims itself to be a political authority. Even after losing an election Hamas is still around because it turns out Hamas has more guns and Fatah can win all the votes it wants but when you live in a bombed out shell of isolated living space guns matter more than votes in a lot of ways.
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
There is a number of reasons Western powers or Israel itself have not yet destroyed Hamas. -Such a war would involve loads of urban guerrilla fighting and thus result in lots of casualties for the attacker as well as all the innocents caught in the crossfire. Given the fact that Hamas is not really capable of seriously threatening one, the costs of a war to remove them are seen as too high. -Hamas enjoys a lot of sympathy and support in Middle Eastern nations. Attacking Hamas in an all-out war would have repercussions far beyond Gaza. It would set the entire Middle East aflame and turn most muslim nations against the attacker. Facing Hamas almost certainly would mean also having to face Hezbollah, and probably a shadow war with Iran, making the conflict a lot more costly. Additionally, Arab nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are also highly unlikely to remain quiet. Nobody wants that. -The amount of civilian casualties an attacker would undoubtedly cause would result in a total media disaster and international backlash. Even beyond the Middle East, the attacker would likely become a pariah. Again, not something Israel or any Western power wants. -Hamas, is a shady terrorist/criminal organisation that would be incredibly hard if not virtually impossible to root out. Hamas has had to deal with its leaders and members being assassinated by the Mossad for decades and has become very good at adapting to deal with that. They are an extremely decentralised and flexible organisation. It is a classic head of the hydra story. For every Hamas member and leader you kill, two more take their place. The only way to totally destroy Hamas and remove them from power would be to destroy their roots: their support among the people of Gaza. If you don't take out those roots, the organisation will just regrow. And guess what: a violent intervention would do anything but destroy Hamas' popular support. Quite the contrary.. -And even if you would succeed in removing Hamas, what then? Who will take their place? Nobody has a plan for that, and unless you can come up with a plan for 'what happens next', removing Hamas would be a very bad idea. And obviously, if coming up with a 'after Hamas' plan was simple, it would already have been done.
So yeah, plenty of reasons why Hamas is allowed to exist. Removing them would be a lot harder than you seem to think it is, despite Hamas' military weakness compared to Israel and Western powers.
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
Hamas existing is key in the Israeli strategy of "they're all terrorists so they don't deserve better than this".
Simple as that. A secular, strong Palestinian government would need compromises of the kind the current Israeli leadership is not willing to take. Read: settlements, infrastructure, security.... etc.
-Hamas, is a shady terrorist/criminal organisation that would be incredibly hard if not virtually impossible to root out.
The only people who can root out Hamas is the Palestinians themselves. Fatah (secular) and Hamas (islamist) have been in a state of conflict from the very beginning, and only grudgingly work together. They routinely attack each other and they've been at a state of quasi civil war for over a decade now.
Prop up Fatah, give them the law enforcement tools to work against Hamas and the half a dozen or so smaller fundamentalist players in the area, but above all give them the tools to fill the social vacuum they will leave. The same vacuum the occupied when the PLO and Israel failed to provide for the people in Gaza.
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
This is what happened last time America tried that;
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
This is what happened last time America tried that;
What is this image?
The name of the image tells me it is the Beirut barracks bombing in the 1980's. Don't really see how it is relevant here, since it is highly unlikely Hamas could pull something like that off. The Beirut bombing was conducted either by Hezbollah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, both of those organisations are vastly more dangerous and capable than Hamas is.
It wasn't carried out by either of those but by Amal or Islamic Jihad who were both bit players in that stage of the civil war.
The story behind it is that the United States arrived in Beirut as part of the Multi National Force (MNF) also comprising of Britain France and Italy. They were their to stabilize the situation and oversee the removal of the PLO as part of the Israeli disengagement. They instead became embroiled in the Civil War and assisted the Israeli occupation forces (even going so far to use one of their battleships to fire upon Muslim groups). As they were supposed to be intervening to bring peace their shift in stance let to them becoming a recognised combatant.
Despite Iron Captains' assertion the attack on the marine barracks was carried out by a simple truck bomb, pretty crude but devastating. It killed over 240 American as well as Sixty French. Its relevance here is because that the sort of thing that had happens when you try to intervene in the Middle East.
ingtaer wrote: It wasn't carried out by either of those but by Amal or Islamic Jihad who were both bit players in that stage of the civil war. The story behind it is that the United States arrived in Beirut as part of the Multi National Force (MNF) also comprising of Britain France and Italy. They were their to stabilize the situation and oversee the removal of the PLO as part of the Israeli disengagement. They instead became embroiled in the Civil War and assisted the Israeli occupation forces (even going so far to use one of their battleships to fire upon Muslim groups). As they were supposed to be intervening to bring peace their shift in stance let to them becoming a recognised combatant.
Despite Iron Captains' assertion the attack on the marine barracks was carried out by a simple truck bomb, pretty crude but devastating. It killed over 240 American as well as Sixty French. Its relevance here is because that the sort of thing that had happens when you try to intervene in the Middle East.
"Islamic Jihad Organisation" is the group that claimed the attack. It is also a group that no one had ever heard before of which nobody has ever seen a member. So either this group consists of mysterious ninjas that can vanish at will, or it does not exist. Virtually no one, from Lebanese police to the CIA, believed that there actually ever was a group by that name. Most people believe it was just a front for the Revolutionary Guard or Hezbollah, or perhaps an early name for the group that would become Hezbollah. To add further credibility to that, the suicide bomber was an Iranian. Also, I seriously doubt Hamas will ever be able to assemble a bomb of that magnitude in Gaza. The delivery vehicle may have been simple, the production of such powerful fuel-air explosive without anyone finding out is anything but. If Hamas could build something like that, they undoubtedly already would have done so. Gaza is an entirely different situation than Lebanon.
ingtaer wrote: It wasn't carried out by either of those but by Amal or Islamic Jihad who were both bit players in that stage of the civil war.
The story behind it is that the United States arrived in Beirut as part of the Multi National Force (MNF) also comprising of Britain France and Italy. They were their to stabilize the situation and oversee the removal of the PLO as part of the Israeli disengagement. They instead became embroiled in the Civil War and assisted the Israeli occupation forces (even going so far to use one of their battleships to fire upon Muslim groups). As they were supposed to be intervening to bring peace their shift in stance let to them becoming a recognised combatant.
Despite Iron Captains' assertion the attack on the marine barracks was carried out by a simple truck bomb, pretty crude but devastating. It killed over 240 American as well as Sixty French. Its relevance here is because that the sort of thing that had happens when you try to intervene in the Middle East.
"Islamic Jihad Organisation" is the group that claimed the attack. It is also a group that no one had ever heard before of which nobody has ever seen a member. So either this group consists of mysterious ninjas that can vanish at will, or it does not exist. Virtually no one, from Lebanese police to the CIA, believed that there actually ever was a group by that name. Most people believe it was just a front for the Revolutionary Guard or Hezbollah, or perhaps an early name for the group that would become Hezbollah. To add further credibility to that, the suicide bomber was an Iranian.
Also, I seriously doubt Hamas will ever be able to assemble a bomb of that magnitude in Gaza. The delivery vehicle may have been simple, the production of such powerful fuel-air explosive without anyone finding out is anything but. If Hamas could build something like that, they undoubtedly already would have done so. Gaza is an entirely different situation than Lebanon.
Plus the odds of letting a large vehicle like that anywhere close to a US army or IDF base are pretty slim. Barring James Bond stuff like using a stolen vehicle or something like that.
That said, the tactic has been used a few times in Iraq and Afghanistan as a perimeter-breaching measure so troops inside would be significantly more alert and aware than in Lebanon.
Oh, and they did appeal it, calling it unfair of the courts to prohibit them from using children as human shields. Despite court rulings, they were doing it as recent as March of this year.
Xenomancers wrote: Can someone explain to me why Hamas is allowed to exist by the western powers? I'm not a big fan of intervention - I think this is a problem we should let Israel take care of themselves. However, If any government deserved to be removed from power and considering how easy it would be - it has to be Hamas.
Because every time that anyone has tried to end it, Israel has killed the replacements. Efforts by Fatah to eliminate Hamas has been crushed hard by Israel and the United States. You do grasp that THEY PUT HAMAS THERE because Fatah had given up on terrorism and they were not happy with that.
You believe Israel want's hamas in power? I guess that could explain why they don't wipe them out - seems counter productive though.
Counter productive how though? For all its rethoric the worst Hamas could muster was a few guys with hand grenades in a crowd of angry civilians. Hamas is the enemy you know and the justification you need. Once Hamas is gone Palestinians won't be any less angry, I mean most Israeli victims of violence in recent years have fallen close to the West Bank and not Gaza.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Counter productive how though? For all its rethoric the worst Hamas could muster was a few guys with hand grenades in a crowd of angry civilians. Hamas is the enemy you know and the justification you need. Once Hamas is gone Palestinians won't be any less angry, I mean most Israeli victims of violence in recent years have fallen close to the West Bank and not Gaza.
I think Israels greatest fear is some kind of biological or chemical attack on one of their cities - Don't you think Gaza under the rule of hamas makes that more likely?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Counter productive how though? For all its rethoric the worst Hamas could muster was a few guys with hand grenades in a crowd of angry civilians. Hamas is the enemy you know and the justification you need. Once Hamas is gone Palestinians won't be any less angry, I mean most Israeli victims of violence in recent years have fallen close to the West Bank and not Gaza.
I think Israels greatest fear is some kind of biological or chemical attack on one of their cities - Don't you think Gaza under the rule of hamas makes that more likely?
I would suspect it probably makes no difference for a couple of reasons. First and most importantly, without removing the pressures that created Hamas, something else will fill the same role, we've seen that repeatedly throughout the middle east in recent decades, and that something else is invariably even more violent and radical. Second, Gaza is blockaded, everything coming in or out is controlled and inspected. The facilities and equipment, to say nothing of the human expertise required, necessary for a major biochem warfare attack (and not just something like a chlorine bomb made from pool chemicals) would probably be a big noticeable red flag.
More importantly, there are practical reasons such weapons dont see normal use. They're awkward, expensive, difficult and dangerous to manufacture and deploy, their actual casualty effects are wildly variable and situational, and they are hard to control once deployed with a high likelyhood of turning on their users. These things really are very scary sounding but make really terrible weapons. If they were super effective, no ban or moral issues would prevent their routine use, their greatest role is initial psychological shock, after which countermeasures rapidly diminish their value over time starting as soon as the other side realizes what it is dealing with.
Not saying its impossible, but broadly speaking, biochem warfare isnt generally a terribly functional aspect of conflict, generally the same resources invested in conventional weapons will get you a whole lot more.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Counter productive how though? For all its rethoric the worst Hamas could muster was a few guys with hand grenades in a crowd of angry civilians. Hamas is the enemy you know and the justification you need. Once Hamas is gone Palestinians won't be any less angry, I mean most Israeli victims of violence in recent years have fallen close to the West Bank and not Gaza.
I think Israels greatest fear is some kind of biological or chemical attack on one of their cities - Don't you think Gaza under the rule of hamas makes that more likely?
Not really. Hamas rules a tiny bit of territory that is heavily monitored. What Hamas wants to do and what Hamas can do are miles apart. Israel watches them like hawks and routinely kills anyone in the Hamas leadership they can get their hands on and consider too dangerous, if somebody so much as farts the Israelis likely know. Its incredibly unlikely Hamas will ever develop the capacity in Gaza, let alone the delivery mechanism required to be effective. And for Hamas a dozens others, removing Hamas doesn't remove the underlying conditions that create the urges Hamas profits from.
Xenomancers wrote: I think Israels greatest fear is some kind of biological or chemical attack on one of their cities - Don't you think Gaza under the rule of hamas makes that more likely?
I'm gonna say an Iranian nuke probably beats that. Hamas has trouble getting together infrastructure to smuggle food. The requirements to create a viable bio-weapon are orders of magnitude larger.
Let me spell it out for you: To be a viable threat to Israel, you'd need to be able to inflict casualties in the mid to low thousands, at least. Hamas on it's best day might be able to manage a few hundred. That's why they keep them, since their presence keeps the ultra conservatives in power in Israel, without any serious risk. They're not going to kill the scary, dangerous group that keeps their ballot boxes full.
The name of the image tells me it is the Beirut barracks bombing in the 1980's. Don't really see how it is relevant here, since it is highly unlikely Hamas could pull something like that off. The Beirut bombing was conducted either by Hezbollah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, both of those organisations are vastly more dangerous and capable than Hamas is.
The attack was basically carried out at the behest of Iran by a group that is basically a foreign front of Hezbollah. The group has now split from Hezbollah and is commonly known as Islamic Jihad.
That said, Hezbollah is certainly not more dangerous than Hamas, depending on how you define dangerous. Hezbollah is certainly more competent, but Hezbollah is also a lot more moral. As an organization they reject the targeting of civilians who are not affiliated with the state. An military barracks is in their eyes a valid target because it is a military facility. A court house is a valid target because it is a state building. An apartment complex is not a valid target. For example Hezbollah denounced the 9/11 attacks as "barbaric" because it explicitly targeted civilians.
Hezbollah is also an organization that can be reasoned and negotiated with since they're kind of the opposite of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that dabbles in state politics. Hezbollah is a political party that dabbles in terrorism (the former being the primary reason Hezbollah is not listed as a terrorist group by some countries).
Xenomancers wrote: I think Israels greatest fear is some kind of biological or chemical attack on one of their cities - Don't you think Gaza under the rule of hamas makes that more likely?
I'm gonna say an Iranian nuke probably beats that. Hamas has trouble getting together infrastructure to smuggle food. The requirements to create a viable bio-weapon are orders of magnitude larger.
Let me spell it out for you: To be a viable threat to Israel, you'd need to be able to inflict casualties in the mid to low thousands, at least. Hamas on it's best day might be able to manage a few hundred. That's why they keep them, since their presence keeps the ultra conservatives in power in Israel, without any serious risk. They're not going to kill the scary, dangerous group that keeps their ballot boxes full.
Gaza with them burning out the fuel pipe can barely sustain fuel and gas yet alone build chemical or bio weapons.
Plus they need special, rather thought out ways of delivery. Even if someone provided blue prints etx. Building them would be a task. There not gonna be simple designs.
They do not have access to tons of advanced metals, work shops and ability to manufacture high grade alloys.
Unlikely they ever develop them. Even then may not use them. There not out right intrested in suicide which a chemical strike would being on them.
Then you just run into the issue that Mossad doesn't even think Iran has an active weapons program (something Mossad purposefully leaked via South Africa in 2014 as part of their ongoing feud with Benjamin Netanyahu). All evidence points to Iran abandoning active weaponization efforts in 2003-2006 and then giving up even passive interest in 2009.
The specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon is just fear mongering absent evidence. Iraq 2.0.
jhe90 wrote: They do not have access to tons of advanced metals, work shops and ability to manufacture high grade alloys.
They could, conceivably go with a primitive anthrax delivery system if they could generate enough anthrax, that is. All you really need there is basically a hollow ceramic shell that breaks open just after the explosive detonates to spread it over a wide area, but that's still a stunningly sub par weapon. You'd be able to expose maybe a few dozen people, and anthrax isn't something that spreads between people as effectively as ebola and can be treated with ordinary antibiotics.
I never got the Iranian nuclear fearmongering anyway. So what if they get a nuclear weapon? It is not like they are crazy enough to use them. Israel has nuclear weapons of its own as well, so it has nothing to worry about.
jhe90 wrote: They do not have access to tons of advanced metals, work shops and ability to manufacture high grade alloys.
They could, conceivably go with a primitive anthrax delivery system if they could generate enough anthrax, that is. All you really need there is basically a hollow ceramic shell that breaks open just after the explosive detonates to spread it over a wide area, but that's still a stunningly sub par weapon. You'd be able to expose maybe a few dozen people, and anthrax isn't something that spreads between people as effectively as ebola and can be treated with ordinary antibiotics.
Maybe but that's not exactly VX. There's probbly some more potent cures available too, to counter the stuff developed for military.
OK.. Chlorine and mustard... But they need careful delivery and they a not bot even have the resources to make the gas.
And the problem comes.. The reaction from Israel would make cast Lead, Protective Edge or any other campaigns look like a picnic with tea in the park. If thr could prove they used a legally WMD.
Iron_Captain wrote: I never got the Iranian nuclear fearmongering anyway. So what if they get a nuclear weapon? It is not like they are crazy enough to use them. Israel has nuclear weapons of its own as well, so it has nothing to worry about.
Iran may not, but they could give/sell to those who would.
Wouldn’t even need to be an actual nuke. Just packing a bit of uranium into a regular bomb can make a dirty bomb. Even if Iron Dome got the rocket the uranium would get spread into the air. Same with any sort of explosive device, suicide bombers, IEDs, etc...
So Palestine is now demanding the ICC launch a full investigation over the Isreali settlement building, land appropriations and the recent violence in Gaza. Wonder how that's going to go? Especially as Israel for some reason isn't even a member.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44214088
Grey Templar wrote: It is a bit like a Frenchman in Belgium calling the British police because a German national stole his baguette.
Basically this minus a country or two. Really all the ICC can do is what it does all the time. Call Israel a naughty boy, which will be ignored in Israel and by Israel's supporters.
ingtaer wrote: So Palestine is now demanding the ICC launch a full investigation over the Isreali settlement building, land appropriations and the recent violence in Gaza. Wonder how that's going to go? Especially as Israel for some reason isn't even a member.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44214088
Edit; tidying language and adding link.
Even if they take case and decide...
They have no ability to enforce there edict and verdict without the support of other nations.
So unless they can convince them to side with them, back them and enforce the verdict. It's just paper and words. Not anything solid or enforced.
Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement. The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
I think the managed to successfully condamned the US for some putsh in central america a few years back to which the US has simply answered ''zog off'' and zog off they did. If you like to file paperwork and get bragging rights, it's the perfect organisation for you (plus, most of the time, the defendant won't even care to show up or present a defense).
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
I think the managed to successfully condamned the US for some putsh in central america a few years back to which the US has simply answered ''zog off'' and zog off they did. If you like to file paperwork and get bragging rights, it's the perfect organisation for you (plus, most of the time, the defendant won't even care to show up or present a defense).
The PA doesn't have much to show in the way of bragging rights, so they'll take any chance.
UN, ICC, whatever NGO they can convince to toe their line, etc. It's all part of the victim narrative. Israel doesn't really bother now because they have the free get out of jail card from papa US and mama Holocaust guilt. They used to, but they barely try at this stage.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
To be fair to the UN, they actually do a lot of great work, especially in food provision, vaccines, education assistance, etc. Low visibility, high impact basic social stuff that doesnt get headlines but does save millions of lives, and serves as a hub for many negotiation efforts. It is intentionally militarily toothless howeever, and the big 5 saw to that.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement. The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
I think the managed to successfully condamned the US for some putsh in central america a few years back to which the US has simply answered ''zog off'' and zog off they did. If you like to file paperwork and get bragging rights, it's the perfect organisation for you (plus, most of the time, the defendant won't even care to show up or present a defense).
You are probably thinking of the ICJ here. The ICJ adjudicates in disputes between countries, while the ICC prosecutes crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC does not prosecute countries, only individuals. Overall, the ICJ is a bit less useless than the ICC is.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
To be fair to the UN, they actually do a lot of great work, especially in food provision, vaccines, education assistance, etc. Low visibility, high impact basic social stuff that doesnt get headlines but does save millions of lives, and serves as a hub for many negotiation efforts. It is intentionally militarily toothless howeever, and the big 5 saw to that.
Oh yeah, the UN is far from useless, it does a lot of good work. I did not want to imply it doesn't. It just fails miserably in its primary mission to keep peace and maintain international order most of the time, unless it involves conflict in countries that nobody cares about and that do not have resources for the great powers to fight over. The UN only gets the military teeth it needs when the great powers all agree with it, and since most conflicts in the world directly or indirectly involve the great powers, they rarely do. But the UN does do a lot of important humanitarian work and ensures that the great powers at least keep talking to each other, along with a whole lot of other stuff in all kinds of different areas. The ICC does not have any such secondary functions to make it useful.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?
Granted he also had no real state power so similar to a Africa case.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?
That was an ad-hoc tribunal set up for war criminals of former Yugoslavia, very much like Nuremberg after WW2.
The ICC was set up later, the idea being of a permanent structure to judge precisely these type of cases, but with many heavyweights opting out (either not signing in or withdrawing later on) like the US, Russia, Israel (obviously), China.... it's toothless. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia OTOH was set up with a security council decision which makes it much more of a real court.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?
That was an ad-hoc tribunal set up for war criminals of former Yugoslavia, very much like Nuremberg after WW2.
The ICC was set up later, the idea being of a permanent structure to judge precisely these type of cases, but with many heavyweights opting out (either not signing in or withdrawing later on) like the US, Russia, Israel (obviously), China.... it's toothless. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia OTOH was set up with a security council decision which makes it much more of a real court.
Oh, so it's basically completely useless in regards to serious international business, without UN and by extension the main powers military and economic...
At this point then its what... A posturing tool for nations who cannot have ernough money and power to being the UN in?
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?
That was an ad-hoc tribunal set up for war criminals of former Yugoslavia, very much like Nuremberg after WW2.
The ICC was set up later, the idea being of a permanent structure to judge precisely these type of cases, but with many heavyweights opting out (either not signing in or withdrawing later on) like the US, Russia, Israel (obviously), China.... it's toothless. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia OTOH was set up with a security council decision which makes it much more of a real court.
Oh, so it's basically completely useless in regards to serious international business, without UN and by extension the main powers military and economic...
It was made BY the UN, and at one point it had the US, Russia and Israel on board.
Then they decided that maybe they didn't like the idea of at one point being at the ugly end of an international court they couldn't control and withdrew.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, the ICC is one of the most useless organisations ever. They are even more useless than the United Nations. At least the United Nations has some teeth in the very rare cases when the security council can reach agreement.
The ICC so far has never successfully prosecuted any non-Africans. In fact, they have never prosecuted non-Africans in the first place. So unless a war criminal is from some weak African country, he has nothing to fear from the ICC. In the highly unlikely case that the ICC decides to prosecute some Israelis, Israel will just refuse to acknowledge the decision and that is that. Case closed.
I think they managed the serbian guy who killed himself in court?
That was an ad-hoc tribunal set up for war criminals of former Yugoslavia, very much like Nuremberg after WW2.
The ICC was set up later, the idea being of a permanent structure to judge precisely these type of cases, but with many heavyweights opting out (either not signing in or withdrawing later on) like the US, Russia, Israel (obviously), China.... it's toothless. The tribunal for the former Yugoslavia OTOH was set up with a security council decision which makes it much more of a real court.
Oh, so it's basically completely useless in regards to serious international business, without UN and by extension the main powers military and economic...
It was made BY the UN, and at one point it had the US, Russia and Israel on board.
Then they decided that maybe they didn't like the idea of at one point being at the ugly end of an international court they couldn't control and withdrew.
Lets be honest, also you only join the UN etc for own benefits. NATO, EU, ICC, Commonwealth.
everyone is member because they represent benefits or advantages,
now if it ceases to be... well why pay the membership fees and responsibilities.
Then they decided that maybe they didn't like the idea of at one point being at the ugly end of an international court they couldn't control and withdrew.
Particularly since US policy is that US citizens can't be tried for war crimes by a foreign court. And there are several outstanding charges against US citizens for a variety of questionable acts;.
So, the palestinian are, AGAIN,, fighting tanks with rocks ? I mean, isn't the human species supposed to be intelligent and capable of adaptation ? Why are they always doing the same damned things that cause them to die, and then they complain to the rest of the world ? You know what, now that the products made in the so called israeli settlements are labeled as such in the UE, I will do my best to buy them in support to Israel !
Then they decided that maybe they didn't like the idea of at one point being at the ugly end of an international court they couldn't control and withdrew.
Particularly since US policy is that US citizens can't be tried for war crimes by a foreign court. And there are several outstanding charges against US citizens for a variety of questionable acts;.
Every country should do this, what a stupid idea that to be tried by strangers. Everyone should be tried only by people from the same country, that's basic stuff.
godardc wrote: You know what, now that the products made in the so called israeli settlements are labeled as such in the UE, I will do my best to buy them in support to Israel !
So, France is powered by the Maquis rolling in their graves?
Every country should do this, what a stupid idea that to be tried by strangers. Everyone should be tried only by people from the same country, that's basic stuff.
It took the atrocity at Pinkville to get the United States to find one man guilty of war crimes. He served three and a half years under house arrest and was only found guilty for 22 of 509 civilians killed. For comparison, what happened in France with similar circumstances.
I couldn't care less about the maquis: they are but a band of terrorists to me, who killed poor conscripts from Germany and countries invaded and got French civilian killed in return, and didn't change anything in the war .True «heroes»...
...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/
The West blew up some Mosques. Let's follow up every post in the ISIS thread criticising terrorist actions with, "Yeah, but you have to remember what the Americans are doing. What ISIS is doing is justified if you think about it...".
Wyrmalla wrote: ...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/
The entire other half has done exactly the opposite though, throwing shade on the Palestinians when Israeli actions are commented on. Its a conflict that goes back 70 years, by this point tit for tat is the reality, not whataboutism really, as the people in the region engage in it for the exact reason of "well the other guys did X".
Wyrmalla wrote: ...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/
It's almost like killing a hundred people is weighed differently than burning a nature preserve down.
Wyrmalla wrote: ...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/
The West blew up some Mosques. Let's follow up every post in the ISIS thread criticising terrorist actions with, "Yeah, but you have to remember what the Americans are doing. What ISIS is doing is justified if you think about it...".
Not only is this a strawman, but also absolutely absurd since you were trying to paint the Palestinians as bad for damaging a few acres of a nature reserve (possibly since the fire investigation hadn't actually found anything yet) while posting a cute picture of children overlooking the devastation (as it as a much larger grass fire outside the reserve) designed to provoke an emotional response rather than a logical one.
Since you started this with a 'whatabout THIS' you have no grounds to complain that I pointed out that the children would be the ones being burned if it was the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: I have to point out that the Israeli were attacked first in 1948 after having eventually returned peacefully to their land, so the others did it first
Wow...
First of all, there was nothing peaceful about their 'return' Irgun,(a radical Zionist terrorist group) in particular, started a bombing campaign across all of Mandatory Palestine, that took British military intervention to even curtail. In response to this, Lehi (another radical jewish group) blew up a rail line to kill as many British soldiers as possible.
Israel's 'return' cost, depending on the source, 30,000 Palestinians their lives, and 700,000 their homes.
That image was just the first one I found which showed the scale of one of the fires. The Nature Reserve is the latest, but not the only one.
My point still stands. That is seemingly impossible to discuss this topic without either side dog piling one another. The response to an event isn't, "what happened was bad", its "its bad, though the other side brought it on themselves". Which just results in either a shouting a match, or an echo chamber once everyone who doesn't agree with you can't be bothered talking anymore. :/
Wyrmalla wrote: That image was just the first one I found which showed the scale of one of the fires. The Nature Reserve is the latest, but not the only one.
My point still stands. That is seemingly impossible to discuss this topic without either side dog piling one another. The response to an event isn't, "what happened was bad", its "its bad, though the other side brought it on themselves". Which just results in either a shouting a match, or an echo chamber once everyone who doesn't agree with you can't be bothered talking anymore. :/
This can be explained because of the several countries that posters come from. Example:
IRA: not terrorists according the the USA. Terrorists according to UK.
A bomb goes off in a British barracks, and the Irish Americans punch the air like they scored a goal, while the British posters respond in disbelief that what they see as wanton murder is celebrated. They're conditioned to see the 'other' as an enemy, which is why A) the US is tearing itself apart ATM and B) that the earlier suggestion that war crimes be handled at home by courts of thier countrymen would and could never work. Its a conditioned bias.
Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east. It bares the sort of earmarks I expect to see in that situation, including violence, reservations, murder without consequence, and all the fun things that the United States did to my own people. I have near zero sympathy for the Israelis. Thus, my own bias come into the picture. I don't think that anything good is being done by either side, but I do see that some things are worse than others. Most of these have not been from the Palestinians, and so it gets under my skin when people act as though Israel is justified in committing war crimes or mass murder, depending on how you look at the situation, because, well, they're terrorists.
Why are they terrorists? Well, basically because the US says so, which sort of brings me back around to the IRA thing and how who the terrorist is is highly subjective. Don't get me wrong, they're evil fethers too, but no one should be supporting ANY of these people.
Wyrmalla wrote: ...Is it impossible to address the actions of Palestinian extremists without saying "oh well, but the Israelis are also doing X! They made them do it!". Its easy enough to accuse folks of Whataboutism when discussing Russia, till every other comment regarding Palestinian actions is throwing shade on the Israelis. :/
The West blew up some Mosques. Let's follow up every post in the ISIS thread criticising terrorist actions with, "Yeah, but you have to remember what the Americans are doing. What ISIS is doing is justified if you think about it...".
Not only is this a strawman, but also absolutely absurd since you were trying to paint the Palestinians as bad for damaging a few acres of a nature reserve (possibly since the fire investigation hadn't actually found anything yet) while posting a cute picture of children overlooking the devastation (as it as a much larger grass fire outside the reserve) designed to provoke an emotional response rather than a logical one.
Since you started this with a 'whatabout THIS' you have no grounds to complain that I pointed out that the children would be the ones being burned if it was the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: I have to point out that the Israeli were attacked first in 1948 after having eventually returned peacefully to their land, so the others did it first
Wow...
First of all, there was nothing peaceful about their 'return' Irgun,(a radical Zionist terrorist group) in particular, started a bombing campaign across all of Mandatory Palestine, that took British military intervention to even curtail. In response to this, Lehi (another radical jewish group) blew up a rail line to kill as many British soldiers as possible.
Israel's 'return' cost, depending on the source, 30,000 Palestinians their lives, and 700,000 their homes.
You can't make a whole group of people (here, the Israeli) responsible for what a little group of terrorists made. Or at least this is what I learnt since the terrorists attacks.
This is exactly why we should be prosecuted at home: because we have the same culture as our fellow countrymen, and only them can truly understand us. I don't want to be tried by ouganda or whatever because I am blasphemous because I peed on a "sacred ancester tree" that is a death penalty crime for them. The biais exists and is why we should be tried home.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Doesn't the whole, "you can't make a whole group responsible" undermine your own argument over who attacked first 70 years ago.
No, not at all. The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.
Wyrmalla wrote: That image was just the first one I found which showed the scale of one of the fires. The Nature Reserve is the latest, but not the only one.
My point still stands. That is seemingly impossible to discuss this topic without either side dog piling one another. The response to an event isn't, "what happened was bad", its "its bad, though the other side brought it on themselves". Which just results in either a shouting a match, or an echo chamber once everyone who doesn't agree with you can't be bothered talking anymore. :/
This can be explained because of the several countries that posters come from. Example:
IRA: not terrorists according the the USA. Terrorists according to UK.
A bomb goes off in a British barracks, and the Irish Americans punch the air like they scored a goal, while the British posters respond in disbelief that what they see as wanton murder is celebrated. They're conditioned to see the 'other' as an enemy, which is why A) the US is tearing itself apart ATM and B) that the earlier suggestion that war crimes be handled at home by courts of thier countrymen would and could never work. Its a conditioned bias.
In using that analogy are you then implying consent for the actions of these terrorists by posters in this thread? Its just that I don't see it flying on this forum to say that you have deep cultural ties to the people behind some Jihadist terrorist organisation, then start arguing on their behalf. I doubt many here can claim much in the way of ties to either side in this conflict, and instead I suppose it falls down to personal bias.
godardc wrote: I have to point out that the Israeli were attacked first in 1948 after having eventually returned peacefully to their land, so the others did it first
Wow...
First of all, there was nothing peaceful about their 'return' Irgun,(a radical Zionist terrorist group) in particular, started a bombing campaign across all of Mandatory Palestine, that took British military intervention to even curtail. In response to this, Lehi (another radical jewish group) blew up a rail line to kill as many British soldiers as possible.
Israel's 'return' cost, depending on the source, 30,000 Palestinians their lives, and 700,000 their homes.
Which proceeded decades of increasingly heated tensions between the local Arabs and Jews, including a few massacres and culminating in an Arab revolt against British rule. Its a double standard to call the Jews out for turning Palestine into an Independent state when that had been the Arab's intention earlier.
It'd be wishful thinking to imagine a word where the Arabs had been the ones to control the region. In that world do you think that they'd receive as much criticism, or would the world just look at them like any other Middle Eastern state putting the boot down on a minority? You certainly don't hear Assyria being talked about much.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Doesn't the whole, "you can't make a whole group responsible" undermine your own argument over who attacked first 70 years ago.
No, not at all.
The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.
Palestine (at least not as what it is today) didn't exist as a country back then and those Palestinians involved back then are probably dead by now and the vast majority having been men. So how are you going to hold all Palestinians, including women and children, 70 years later responsible for that?
Those terrorists that Baron mentioned, they basically founded the state of Israel, a lot of military men and politicians after 48 had connections to those organizations. Neither party is exactly being the good guys here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: This is exactly why we should be prosecuted at home: because we have the same culture as our fellow countrymen, and only them can truly understand us. I don't want to be tried by ouganda or whatever because I am blasphemous because I peed on a "sacred ancester tree" that is a death penalty crime for them. The biais exists and is why we should be tried home.
This does not work because its not in the interest of the home countries to recognize war crimes comitted by its own people. Even Germany protected war criminals after 45. France, the Netherlands, the US and many more have protected war criminals and denied war crimes for a long time. Only recently have they started making some amends, but for obvious political reasons, prosecuting your own soldiers currently is still a very slow process.
And as for the Uganda thing, this is why the international community has drawn up a list of things you can be prosecuted for. No coubtry is going to extradite you over that silly example.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Doesn't the whole, "you can't make a whole group responsible" undermine your own argument over who attacked first 70 years ago.
No, not at all.
The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.
Palestine didn't exist as a country back then and those Palestinians involved back then are probably dead by now and the vast majority having been men. So how are you going to hold all Palestinians, including women and children, 70 years later responsible for that?
Those terrorists that Baron mentioned, they basically founded the state of Israel, a lot of military men and politicians after 48 had connections to those organizations.
The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.
godardc wrote: The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.
And no one is begrudging Israel defending itself. The problem is that being the victim 70 years ago shouldn't still be giving Israel a blank check today. Imagine how crazy the world would be.
The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.
Well, no, the 1947-1948 war actually started with a UN vote and then was quickly followed by organized terrorism by the Zionist factions of Jewish citizens of Palestine. It's like claiming that the Korean war started because the Americans invaded.
Which proceeded decades of increasingly heated tensions between the local Arabs and Jews, including a few massacres and culminating in an Arab revolt against British rule. Its a double standard to call the Jews out for turning Palestine into an Independent state when that had been the Arab's intention earlier.
It'd be wishful thinking to imagine a word where the Arabs had been the ones to control the region. In that world do you think that they'd receive as much criticism, or would the world just look at them like any other Middle Eastern state putting the boot down on a minority? You certainly don't hear Assyria being talked about much.
Except that the people who were alive and in Palestine during even the 1936 uprising were a relative minority by 1948.
Yes, as I've frequently said, the British and French are the ones most at fault over the current middle east, but Sykes - Picot pretty much ensured that Wahhabist ideology would dominate the region for a very long time.
The war was an official war made by countries IIRC, so this time it was the whole group that attacked, and so, that is responsible.
Well, no, the 1947-1948 war actually started with a UN vote and then was quickly followed by organized terrorism by the Zionist factions of Jewish citizens of Palestine. It's like claiming that the Korean war started because the Americans invaded.
godardc wrote: The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.
And no one is begrudging Israel defending itself. The problem is that being the victim 70 years ago shouldn't still be giving Israel a blank check today. Imagine how crazy the world would be.
Yeah, I totally agree ! But the thing is, 70 years ago, this happened. And so the Arab got revenge for this, and so Israeli too, etc... It is like a "chain" that never ends. But that was started because of them, and so I have difficulties to have compassion for them when they did it, and they keep doing it. It is not like they were trying to (re)build and developp peacefully...
The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.
They attacked because the Israelis were butchering people and driving refugees into their countries. And, how on earth do you figure that Palestinians were responsible for the Arabs invading? Or do you think that all Muslims are effectively interchangeable?
The Israelis, no. You said it yourself: a bunch of terrorists. They shouldn't have attacked a country because some of its citizens were retards.
And yes, I speak about "the Arab countries" as a whole. Because from Syria to Egypt, they all tried to destroy poor Israel.
godardc wrote: The Israelis, no. You said it yourself: a bunch of terrorists. They shouldn't have attacked a country because some of its citizens were retards.
And yes, I speak about "the Arab countries" as a whole. Because from Syria to Egypt, they all tried to destroy poor Israel.
Because those terrorists became the Israeli government. let me spell it out for you: Israel is a state where the terrorists won. Irgun effectively founded the modern IDF.
The 'Arab countries' as you refer to them had the same reaction to Israel that the west had to ISIS.
That's interesting ! Will take a look tomorrow I like the comparison, but be careful, I know it is illegal in France, but I think it is more free in the USA ?
godardc wrote: That's interesting ! Will take a look tomorrow
I like the comparison, but be careful, I know it is illegal in France, but I think it is more free in the USA ?
godardc wrote: The Arab countries attacked, so Israel had to defend itself, starting all this mess. I don't hold every palestinian responsible, but, at the very beggining, it wasn't Israel's fault and so is the victim here.
And no one is begrudging Israel defending itself. The problem is that being the victim 70 years ago shouldn't still be giving Israel a blank check today. Imagine how crazy the world would be.
Yeah, I totally agree ! But the thing is, 70 years ago, this happened. And so the Arab got revenge for this, and so Israeli too, etc... It is like a "chain" that never ends. But that was started because of them, and so I have difficulties to have compassion for them when they did it, and they keep doing it. It is not like they were trying to (re)build and developp peacefully...
But that was 70 years ago. Its unreasonable that Israel is reacting as if it was 70 years ago. Israel is an 7 feet tall adult and Palestine is a 4 foot tall kid when it comes to strength. Yes, when the kid kicks the adult that is indeed a bad thing, but the adult shouldn't respond by beating the kid senseless every time.
godardc wrote: That's interesting ! Will take a look tomorrow
I like the comparison, but be careful, I know it is illegal in France, but I think it is more free in the USA ?
When the white paper was published in which the British authorities rejected a two-state solution and instead defended a single state with an Arab majority the different Jewish armed faction started a terrorist campaign against the British, going as far as assassinating the highest British authority in the Middle East during wartime and sneaking as many immigrants as possible to try to change the demographic balance (which incidentally is why right of return is so symbolically important for Palestinians).
Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east.
Ignoring incredibly problematic language like ‘invasive species’, this Ashkenormative picture of Israeli Jews is very misleading. Only around a quarter of Israeli’s are Ashkenazi. Obviously most of the Sephardic community are also largely european-descendents, but I tend to suspect that when people talk of Israeli Jews as Europeans they mean Ashkenazis. Though they may well be unfamiliar with the term. That said, even of you include all Sephardis, I think you’re still below half of the total population.
Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east.
Ignoring incredibly problematic language like ‘invasive species’, this Ashkenormative picture of Israeli Jews is very misleading. Only around a quarter of Israeli’s are Ashkenazi.
Most Mizrahi in Israel arrived post-independence.
The initial flows were very much European. The 1st to 5th Aliyahs were very much an European affair.
House-bulldozing and field-burning is the typical collective punishment doled out from the Israeli side.
It really is just that difficult for people to discuss this topic without falling back on this eye for an eye nonsense.
That is a pretty ironic thing to say, considering the fact you are engaging in exactly that behaviour.
But yes, in the discussion of any conflict "but the other side did X" is going to be inevitable. That is how conflicts work. People get angry over bad things the other side does and then use it as justification for doing bad things themselves.
OMG.... did you... did you just Godwin Israel??????
