Israel has halted transfers of the tax revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinians in retaliation for their move to join the international criminal court in the Hague, according to Israeli media.
The Palestinians announced earlier this week that they are joining the international criminal court in the Hague to pursue war-crimes charges against Israel. The move is meant to pressure Israel into withdrawing from the territories that Palestinians demand for a future state.
The move drew threats of retaliation from Israel and criticism from the US government, which called it “counterproductive”.
The daily newspaper Haaretz reported on Saturday that Israel had decided to withhold the taxes it collects for the Palestinians under the current interim peace accords and transfers each month to the Palestinian Authority. December’s tax transfer is about $127m, according to Haaretz.
An unnamed Israeli government official confirmed the substance of the reports but refused to elaborate.
Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat lashed out at the Israeli manoeuvre, calling it an act of piracy and a “collective punishment” against the Palestinian people.
“If Israel thinks that through economic pressure it will succeed in diverting our approach from freedom and independence, then it is wrong,” Erekat told the Associated Press. “This is the money of the Palestinian people and Israel is not a donor country.”
Israel has stopped tax transfers before but such freezes have been short-lived.
Withholding the funds is just one of several actions Israel could take against the Palestinians, including expanding West Bank settlement construction and curbing certain privileges. Israel’s Channel 2 news reported on Saturday night that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu would convene his cabinet in the coming days to discuss further retaliatory steps. The US government has not said how it will react, but it provides hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians.
Turning to the international court at the Hague marks a major policy shift, transforming Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s relations with Israel from tense to openly hostile.
Abbas has been under heavy domestic pressure to take stronger action against Israel amid months of rising tensions over the collapse of US-brokered peace talks last spring, a 50-day war between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza over the summer, a recent spate of deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis, and unrest over access to a key holy site in Jerusalem.
JERUSALEM — The Israeli government plans to withhold at least $127 million in tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority, an Israeli official confirmed Saturday, as tensions between the two sides escalated.
The move appears to be a response to Palestinian attempts to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The decision comes after a week of what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as “unilateral moves” by the Palestinians. They included trying to win passage of a U.N. resolution imposing a time frame for a peace accord and an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory. The Palestinians have also said they will sign 16 international treaties, including one that would make them members of the ICC, as the international court is known.
The U.N. resolution did not pass in the Security Council. But if the Palestinians’ application to the ICC is successful, it would give them the ability to request investigations of alleged atrocities by Israel. That could include probing Israel’s actions last summer in the Gaza Strip, where it fought a 50-day war with the militant Palestinian group Hamas. More than 2,000 Gazans were killed in the fighting, according to U.N. figures. Israel maintains that a significant number of those slain were militants who fired rockets at Israeli communities.
Although it is still unclear whether the Palestinians will be accepted to the ICC or will succeed with the other treaties, their efforts have exacerbated an already tense situation, pushing Israelis and Palestinians further from the negotiating table.
The U.S. government has criticized the Palestinians’ actions, and some members of Congress have warned that humanitarian aid to the Palestinians may be in jeopardy if they continue in the current direction.
In Israel, Netanyahu and members of his coalition have already cautioned that the Palestinians have more cause for concern when it comes to war-crimes investigations than Israel does.
The Israeli government’s decision to freeze the taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestinians from custom and excise duties — funds the Palestinian Authority relies on to pay salaries and provide public services — appears likely to cause a further flare-up.
“It is not good news. The Palestinians are already upset and frustrated. They believe that Israel has been dragging its feet in the negotiations for years and they have no choice but to take unilateral moves in the international community,” said Moshe Maoz, a professor in the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Maoz said holding back the tax funds could have harsh consequences, including sparking bloodshed or maybe even an intifada, or violent Palestinian uprising, like those of the late 1980s and early 2000s.
Israel has withheld tax revenue meant for the Palestinians in the past, but such standoffs eased after international pressure and backtracking by the Palestinians. This time, however, that seems unlikely to happen.
According to a report Saturday in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the Palestinians were meant to have received the $127 million on Friday, but Netanyahu, during an emergency meeting held Thursday to discuss Israel’s response to the ICC application, decided not to transfer December’s funds. It was unclear whether Israel planned to hold up the tax revenue for additional months going forward.
An Israeli official confirmed the blocking of the funds. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to provide the information.
In a statement Saturday night, Saeb Erekat, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee, criticized the Israeli move.
“Israel is once again responding to our legal steps with further illegal collective punishments,” said Erekat, adding that the Palestinians were told unofficially on Saturday that the tax revenue would not be transferred. “This is not Israeli charity to the Palestinian people they are withholding, but our own money, which is rightfully ours.”
Based on previous peace agreements, Israel collects millions of dollars in customs duties on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. Most of the money is from goods that arrive at Israeli ports destined for the Palestinian market, but there is also indirect taxation on fuel, social benefits, health services and income taxes from Palestinians employed in Israel. The money is normally transferred monthly to the Palestinian Authority.
So Israel attempts to block the Palestinians from joining the ICC in order to bring legal action against Israel for their conduct in the recent hostilities by collectively punishing the entire palestinian people through the withholding of funding. Really gonna persuade people that you didn't do anything wrong...
If what Israel has done are considered warcrimes, then the Palestinians are even more guilty of warcrimes.
Its a case of the kettle calling the dirty plate black.
So having a war crime committed against you gives you the right of committing a war crime back?
Not a very good stance to take, really. Especially when the majority of people who will be harmed by such actions are those who didn't have anything to do with the crime committed against you in the first place.
Palestinians have done a lot of things wrong, yes. But that doesn't make Israel's apparent indiscriminate shelling of homes, schools and hospitals, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, any less wrong.
I wouldn't consider defending your nation against rocket attacks and suicide bombers to be a war crime. Yet the Palestinians get a free pass when they deliberately target schools and other civilian targets.
Israel doesn't target civilians. In fact they're very good at minimizing civilian casualties. But the Palestinians actually want civilian casualties because its just a PR stunt for them. Its not a warcrime to kill a civilian accidentally if a terrorist was deliberately using them as human shields.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Palestinians have done a lot of things wrong, yes. But that doesn't make Israeli indiscriminate shelling of homes, schools and hospitals, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, any less wrong.
Israeli "shelling" has been anything but indiscriminate. I don't even think shelling is what they have done in most cases. They've done a lot of precision strikes with aircraft. The problem is Hamas purposely sets up firing positions right next to, or on top of homes, schools, and hospitals.
Indeed. The terrorists deliberately set up their base of operations and weapon stores near those targets. Its a win-win situation for them. Either they'll be safe from attack OR they get to parade the dead bodies of children around in front of cameras.
The people committing the warcrime in this situations aren't the people firing the missiles, its the dirt bags hiding behind women and children.
Law of Armed Conflict makes it very clear that setting weapons in places like churches, schools, hospitals, etc... is illegal. Doing so does make them legal targets.
The only ones committing crimes in such situations are the Palestinians.
Maybe not, but they do practice something called Collective Punishment. If someone takes a potshot at Israelis the IDF happily takes out a few houses "to make sure it doesn't happen again". And they often do quite dickish moves when after a suspect, such as demolishing his home (or the home of his parents). If that leaves 20 people homeless, well, serves them right for being related to the guy. As they say on the West Bank - you're not innocent until proven guilty, you're guilty until dead.
If what Israel has done are considered warcrimes, then the Palestinians are even more guilty of warcrimes.
Its a case of the kettle calling the dirty plate black.
So having a war crime committed against you gives you the right of committing a war crime back?
Not a very good stance to take, really. Especially when the majority of people who will be harmed by such actions are those who didn't have anything to do with the crime committed against you in the first place.
Palestinians have done a lot of things wrong, yes. But that doesn't make Israel's apparent indiscriminate shelling of homes, schools and hospitals, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, any less wrong.
If Israel wanted to perform "indiscriminate shelling" there would be no one left alive in Gaza.
Maybe not, but they do practice something called Collective Punishment. If someone takes a potshot at Israelis the IDF happily takes out a few houses "to make sure it doesn't happen again". And they often do quite dickish moves when after a suspect, such as demolishing his home (or the home of his parents). If that leaves 20 people homeless, well, serves them right for being related to the guy. As they say on the West Bank - you're not innocent until proven guilty, you're guilty until dead.
You can forgive them for being heavy handed sometimes. They are surrounded by people who would enjoy nothing better than the complete extermination of all Jews.
Maybe not, but they do practice something called Collective Punishment. If someone takes a potshot at Israelis the IDF happily takes out a few houses "to make sure it doesn't happen again". And they often do quite dickish moves when after a suspect, such as demolishing his home (or the home of his parents). If that leaves 20 people homeless, well, serves them right for being related to the guy. As they say on the West Bank - you're not innocent until proven guilty, you're guilty until dead.
You can forgive them for being heavy handed sometimes. They are surrounded by people who would enjoy nothing better than the complete extermination of all Jews.
No, people can't seem to forgive them for being heavy handed... they have no concept of what life is like there, having thousands of rockets and mortars launched at them every year...
Right, people should forgive them for being heavy handed.
Actually, they should praise them for being light handed given what the situation is actually like. I mean, they might as well be surrounded by Nazis given how much their neighbors hate them.
And its not like Israel did anything that would warrant this level of hatred. Nothing really justifies declaring war on them the day they become a sovereign nation.
Maybe not, but they do practice something called Collective Punishment. If someone takes a potshot at Israelis the IDF happily takes out a few houses "to make sure it doesn't happen again". And they often do quite dickish moves when after a suspect, such as demolishing his home (or the home of his parents). If that leaves 20 people homeless, well, serves them right for being related to the guy. As they say on the West Bank - you're not innocent until proven guilty, you're guilty until dead.
You can forgive them for being heavy handed sometimes. They are surrounded by people who would enjoy nothing better than the complete extermination of all Jews.
Actually no, I can't. They'd probably find less people wanted them dead if they didn't punish innocent people for happening to live close to someone who fired a rocket at them.
Collective punishment is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva conventions.
Another part of the laws of war which Israel may have breached is that of proportionality.
A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).
In the most recent conflict, the UN estimates the number of Palestinian militants killed as 557. In contrast to that they estimate the deaths of 1,500 civilians (including 490 children). So 69% of casualties were civilian. Then there are estimates to 11,00 palestinians wounded, 500,000 displaced, 20,000 homes destroyed.
In the instance of the attack on the hospital which they claimed was being used to store rockets they killed 5 patients and injured 70 people, including 30 medical personnel. Was that proportionate to the small military advantage of possibly removing a small rocket stockpile? Considering that it didn't seemingly reduce Hamas' ability to launch rocket attacks, at all?
Maybe not, but they do practice something called Collective Punishment. If someone takes a potshot at Israelis the IDF happily takes out a few houses "to make sure it doesn't happen again". And they often do quite dickish moves when after a suspect, such as demolishing his home (or the home of his parents). If that leaves 20 people homeless, well, serves them right for being related to the guy. As they say on the West Bank - you're not innocent until proven guilty, you're guilty until dead.
You can forgive them for being heavy handed sometimes. They are surrounded by people who would enjoy nothing better than the complete extermination of all Jews.
Actually no, I can't. They'd probably find less people wanted them dead if they didn't punish innocent people for happening to live close to someone who fired a rocket at them.
No, they really wouldn't hate them less.
Israel was invaded mere hours after it was established at midnight on May 14th 1948 without provocation.
They were invaded by Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and a bunch of Saudi volunteers.
Ever since then Israel has been in a constant state of war with people who have nothing less than genocide on their minds.
Another part of the laws of war which Israel may have breached is that of proportionality.
A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).
In the most recent conflict, Israel estimated around 170-200 militant casualties, yet there were around 550 civilian casualties.
In the instance of the attack on the hospital which they claimed was being used to store rockets they killed 5 patients and injured 70 people, including 30 medical personnel. Was that proportionate to the small military advantage of possibly removing a small rocket stockpile? Considering that it didn't seemingly reduce Hamas' ability to launch rocket attacks, at all?
That's an entirely subjective law of war(beside the fact that the very idea of war having laws is silly)
There is no definition of what is "excessive" or "proportional".
Besides, it clearly a choice of either you let them fire that rocket at your civilians and kill a bunch, or you destroy the rocket and kill a bunch of their civilians. Neither is a good choice, but its the lesser of two evils.
Total Israeli civilian losses over the whole 50 day conflict was 6 dead. Speaks volumes about the effectiveness of Hamas' rockets compared to Israeli fighter craft and tanks. Though I guess it helps that Israel has a sophisticated anti-rocket system that intercepts 90% of all rocket attacks which would hit populated areas.
Besides, it clearly a choice of either you let them fire that rocket at your civilians and kill a bunch, or you destroy the rocket and kill a bunch of their civilians. Neither is a good choice, but its the lesser of two evils.
If Israel is innocent of war crimes then they should have no problem with the Palestinians joining the ICC. That opens the Palestinian war criminals to prosecution.
Da Boss wrote: If Israel is innocent of war crimes then they should have no problem with the Palestinians joining the ICC. That opens the Palestinian war criminals to prosecution.
I am not familiar with how the courts operate, but why would the Palestinians need to be members of the court to be charged with warcrimes? If thats true, then it makes the entire organization even more laughable.
Like all international bodies, it only operates on the co-operation of members. Nations cannot be forced to comply. That's my understanding of it anyway- not an international law specialist!
Da Boss wrote: Like all international bodies, it only operates on the co-operation of members. Nations cannot be forced to comply. That's my understanding of it anyway- not an international law specialist!
You might think it's laughable, I think it's better than nothing.
This also makes Israels opposition to Palestine joining even more ridiculous, as they could just ignore the verdict if it went against them, safe in the knowledge that their US support won't care either.
Isreal and the US aren't even ratified members, so the ICC doesn't have any real pull over them, at all.
The US is not a signatory (of course), but the entire thing is symbolic. If they open prosecution, all Israel has to do is refuse to comply. Very little can be done about it if they do that unless international opinion is very firmly against Israel. It isn't at the moment, though it is shifting due to their stupid policies.
What the Palestinians want is the recognition, the publicity, and within their own circles, the politicians who are doing this want their people to see them as being effective and take support away from Hamas.
But Israeli opposition is certainly more about internal Israeli politics and grandstanding than it is about any worry that they'll have to hand over soldiers. Israel knows that as long as big brother USA has it's back, it has nothing to worry about, internationally.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Total Israeli civilian losses over the whole 50 day conflict was 6 dead. Speaks volumes about the effectiveness of Hamas' rockets compared to Israeli fighter craft and tanks. Though I guess it helps that Israel has a sophisticated anti-rocket system that intercepts 90% of all rocket attacks which would hit populated areas.
Besides, it clearly a choice of either you let them fire that rocket at your civilians and kill a bunch, or you destroy the rocket and kill a bunch of their civilians. Neither is a good choice, but its the lesser of two evils.
Because the Israeli's spend every day of their lives being attacked by these rockets. They've got defensive drills down to a T. Their probably better at it then our military is.
Does that make it right? Does that make it fair to them? Only 6 die, well that's fine. Nevermind that their lives are constantly being disrupted with the threat of death and maiming, for no other reason then the fact that they exist.
Two sides to the conflict djones520. Does it make it right that the Palestinians were dispossessed and continue to have their land taken from them, their settlements bulldozed and their economy strangled?
It's not a one sided issue. But I can see we're just going to dance the same old dance here.
Da Boss wrote: Two sides to the conflict djones520. Does it make it right that the Palestinians were dispossessed and continue to have their land taken from them, their settlements bulldozed and their economy strangled?
It's not a one sided issue. But I can see we're just going to dance the same old dance here.
It is not a one sided issue, but there one side is the one who is constantly breaking cease fires, conducting terrorist activities, using the state to teach their children hatred in order to keep the status quo, and otherwise has zero intent on finding a peaceful resolution to the matter.
Maybe if the international community would actually start treating the Palestinians with half of the bs they give to the Israeli's, instead of treating them like innocent victims, then this issue could be resolved.
Pffft. come off it. The international community has been far more generous the Israel than to Palestine. Most of it doesn't even recognize Palestinian statehood!
I could throw stuff back about Israel constantly expanding into territory, ignoring treaties and so on and so on.
No doubt, the Palestinians use more disgusting tactics, and are more fanatical than the Israelis (though Israel's shift rightward might make that obsolete in the future too). That's a function of the power dynamic here. One side fights with simple rocket launchers and AKs. The other has one of the most sophisticated and well funded militaries on the planet. If you want to fight something like that, you fight dirty, or you die.
I mean, unless you're saying that the Palestinians should have just peacefully accepted being dispossessed en-mass continuing to have land taken from them piece by piece. I don't know many groups of people who would accept that- I'd say most Americans would say they'd fight to the death to prevent that from happening to them.
And due respect, I'd rather not engage in the he-said-she-said over Israel Palestine too much in this thread. I think the application to the court is interesting, and it might be more interesting than having the same old arguments from our entrenched positions.
Why do you think Israel is worried about this, if it knows it won't have to hand over troops? Do you think it might be found guilty of war crimes?
The Palestinians would be allowed to live in Israel as citizens if they'd accept it. But instead they'd rather hold onto irrational hatred and the idea that they could have their own nation.
The only reason they even have delusions of statehood is because its a convenient rallying point against Israel. If Israel wasn't there they'd be getting ground under the heels of one of the other neighboring countries(who don't like the Palestinians either, they just hate Israel more)
Palestinians would be allowed to live in Israel as second class citizens.
I don't think the hatred is that irrational when their land was taken from them by force, do you really think it is?
Your hypothetical holds no water - we have no idea what the Middle East would be like minus Israel (though my money is on it being a far less extreme place, far more friendly to the west and far less entrenched in Islamic extremism. If we're playing hypotheticals, if the middle east had no Israel, I highly doubt 9/11 would have happened.)
Da Boss wrote: Palestinians would be allowed to live in Israel as second class citizens.
I don't think the hatred is that irrational when their land was taken from them by force, do you really think it is?
Your hypothetical holds no water - we have no idea what the Middle East would be like minus Israel (though my money is on it being a far less extreme place, far more friendly to the west and far less entrenched in Islamic extremism. If we're playing hypotheticals, if the middle east had no Israel, I highly doubt 9/11 would have happened.)
Second class citizens? Like all the other Arabs?
They had no land before Israel existed. They were not a state before Israel existed. It was British land. They were offered the chance to have their own nation, and they decided to go to war instead.
They were offered all the marginal land, while Israel was established on the prime agricultural land and coastline. Look at the crazy way the land is divided into two chunks of "palestinian" land - the division favoured Israel and disregarded the Palestinians.
Also "they had no land" - I'm pretty sure they lived on, and owned the land, regardless of which government they were under.
Da Boss wrote: They were offered all the marginal land, while Israel was established on the prime agricultural land and coastline. Look at the crazy way the land is divided into two chunks of "palestinian" land - the division favoured Israel and disregarded the Palestinians.
Thats because they didn't want to cooexist with Jews.
We could have had one nation state with that land being everyones.
Da Boss wrote: They were offered all the marginal land, while Israel was established on the prime agricultural land and coastline. Look at the crazy way the land is divided into two chunks of "palestinian" land - the division favoured Israel and disregarded the Palestinians.
They could have lived in Israel as well. They could have been Israeli. There were no nations there before. Everyone gets pissed because Israel just sprang out of "thing air". Well, Iraq did the same thing. Jordan did the same thing. Syria did the same thing. Lebanon did the same thing. Where is the anger out of these nations just coming into existence?
It was their irrational hatred of all things Jewish though that drove it to where we are today.
Grey Templar- I will admit antisemitism was a big part of it, and still is (very sadly), but that is far to simplistic a view on the creation of Israel. It wasn't like people were offering the Palestinians much of a choice about anything, they were a complete afterthought.
Djones520: The stated purpose of the creation of Israel was as an explicitly Jewish state! The guys that started out the Zionist movement wanted a Jewish state. The ones who founded Israel were hardliners, who had committed many terrorist acts before they got their way. If I had been a muslim living there, I'd have been TERRIFIED of these guys! They never said "Oh hey, let's make a mixed Jewish and Islamic state" and to suggest they did is disingenuous in the extreme.
I mean, say we took a whole pile of mexicans and transplanted them into Austin Texas and told the texans there that this was a mexican state now. Do you think the Texans would take that lying down? I certainly don't! The whole thing was a total mess in how it was conceived and implemented. There is no innocent party in it. Or hell, turn the Mexicans in my example into Muslims from Nigeria. Think the cultural differences wouldn't matter?
Djones520: The stated purpose of the creation of Israel was as an explicitly Jewish state! The guys that started out the Zionist movement wanted a Jewish state. The ones who founded Israel were hardliners, who had committed many terrorist acts before they got their way. If I had been a muslim living there, I'd have been TERRIFIED of these guys! They never said "Oh hey, let's make a mixed Jewish and Islamic state" and to suggest they did is disingenuous in the extreme.
The people who ran the Zionist movement did not create or found the State of Israel, or transplant most of the European Jewry there.
Having said that, there are so many 'sides' to this particular blood-stained coin, that nobody comes off clean anymore. The term 'cycle of hatred' has never been more appropriate.
I am not saying (and I think I was pretty clear on that but whatever) that they created or founded Israel, I'm saying that they were active in the region putting pressure on the British government well before the state was founded. Hardline Zionists DEFINITELY had a major hand in the founding. They were also buying up plenty of land and properties in the area - exactly the sort of thing that causes anti-immigration panic in our own nations today.
I agree with you about the second sentence I suppose, which is why it annoys me that Israel gets a free pass from the US in this. I wish Hamas as an organisation was dismantled and the peaceful political approach had worked. But it didn't, largely due to israel's refusal to co-operate.
Da Boss wrote: I am not saying (and I think I was pretty clear on that but whatever) that they created or founded Israel, I'm saying that they were active in the region putting pressure on the British government well before the state was founded. Hardline Zionists DEFINITELY had a major hand in the founding. They were also buying up plenty of land and properties in the area - exactly the sort of thing that causes anti-immigration panic in our own nations today.
I agree with you about the second sentence I suppose, which is why it annoys me that Israel gets a free pass from the US in this. I wish Hamas as an organisation was dismantled and the peaceful political approach had worked. But it didn't, largely due to israel's refusal to co-operate.
Fair enough, perhaps I misread.
I know that Israel gets a free pass in the US, but I often feel that it is the complete opposite over here in the UK. The media machine here is so intrinsically pro-Arab on absolutely anything involving Israel that it genuinely annoys me. So I suppose there's a balance maintained?
I would also ask you what time point you're alleging Israel is mainly responsible for the failure of the peace process. Because that's been going on for a long time now, to the point whereby I'm not sure you could ever point to a specific point and say, 'it should have stopped there', let alone attribute blame to one side primarily.
To go back to the OP the group the Israelis are withholding funds from is the PNA, not Palestinians in general. Israel never funded any other Palestinian political group.
That doesn't make it any better, because the PNA is basically seeking further international recognition and trying to become a state in doing so, but that's what is happening. There's also the attempted Fatah-Hamas agreement which, justifiably, has Israel scared.
Ketara - Because it's such a long running process, I agree that you can't point to any one point and say "Here, if they'd just done something HERE, it would have been okay!" but from the couple of books I've read on the topic it looks to me that Israel has blocked settlement more often than Palestine, simply because it has far more to lose and far less to gain from any change to the status quo.
Ketara wrote: Having said that, there are so many 'sides' to this particular blood-stained coin, that nobody comes off clean anymore. The term 'cycle of hatred' has never been more appropriate.
Well, that's really the worst thing in it. A Palestinian group fires some rockets, Israel dumps a few bombs. An Israeli settlement enlargement levels a Palestinian village, some of the displaced villagers go suicide bomber. And the Israeli military sure do get a lot of "get out of jail" cards for destroying houses where a suspected terrorist might have lived. The Palestinians at least have the excuse that attacks are conducted by extremist groups that can't be controlled by the weak central authority. The things that the military of a well-run democratic state does can't be something the nation disapproves of, can it?
But the worst part is both sides have people who don't want peace. Palestinians want to wipe out Israel? Sure, many do. But many Israeli hardliners also want to "get rid" of the non-Israeli population in the occupied areas. They just don't do it by killing everyone, they build new houses and send in the army if the filthy arabs don't understand to move away. You can't rule Israel if you don't want to get rid of the Palestinians (at least not if you like not getting assassinated). You can't rule the Palestinians if you don't - at the very least - want Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders.
What were the options for Jews after WW2? Many had no family or property to go home to after the war, and programs that saw the murders of yet more Jews were already starting back up as early as 1946 in places like Poland. They certainly had good reason to fear trying to live again in Germany and places like France, where they were turned in by neighbors or rounded up in raids.
Europe, in their minds, where the Jewish population was scattered and easy prey for whatever mood gripped the main populace, was fast becoming a good place to get out of.
The relocation could clearly have been handled better, but it needed to happen
Well, I'd argue that's debateable - that it needed to happen, but I can certainly understand why the survivors wanted to get the hell out and not be under the thumb of anyone else ever again.
In any case, it happened. It can't be undone, and it's a bloody mess.
In any case, it happened. It can't be undone, and it's a bloody mess.
Too bloody right.
Setting the place straight would require gallons of neutral blood and piles of cash, and nobody is prepared to sacrifice so much for a dustbowl in the Middle-East. The willpower simply isn't there.
So next year, we'll have a couple more homes demolished, and a few more suicide bombers. That'll happen every year until Hamas rebuilds its missile supply, and comes up with a way of launching chlorine gas into israel or something, at which point there'll be another bloody and short conflict. Rinse and repeat.
Meanwhile, more and more people hate each other more and more. Fortress Israel puts up more walls and discrimination, and radical Palestine keeps coming up with new ways to undermine them.
Does everyone forget the 2008 deal that the PA rejected? I mean that was probably the best they could get but Abbas said no, after that I don't think the PA has any right to complain and moan about anything.
Hah! This is what me and Ketara were talking about- how many proposals has Israel shot down? You can't easily point at one incident like that and say "Okay, from now on THAT side is in the wrong entirely!"
Da Boss wrote: Hah! This is what me and Ketara were talking about- how many proposals has Israel shot down? You can't easily point at one incident like that and say "Okay, from now on THAT side is in the wrong entirely!"
Except Abbas, the PA/Hamas do not want peace with Israel.
So...a terrorist organisation wants to join an International Criminal Court...does anyone else see the irony here? Let Palestine join the ICC I say. And prosecute BOTH sides, but especially Hamas, for any and all crimes committed by their respective government's.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So Israel attempts to block the Palestinians from joining the ICC in order to bring legal action against Israel for their conduct in the recent hostilities by collectively punishing the entire palestinian people through the withholding of funding. Really gonna persuade people that you didn't do anything wrong...
Don't worry, there will always be people who will apologize for mans inhumanity to man no matter where it happens. There are people trying to say the Jewish Holocaust never happened and that's about the biggest attempt I've ever heard of. I'm sure somewhere there are people trying to claim the African slave trade never happened and the Potato Famine was just an agricultural problem. If there were not such people war could never happen since it is the ultimate expression of inhumanity, murder on a mass scale, and we wouldn't have war-games emulating the concept to play.
Maybe not, but they do practice something called Collective Punishment. If someone takes a potshot at Israelis the IDF happily takes out a few houses "to make sure it doesn't happen again". And they often do quite dickish moves when after a suspect, such as demolishing his home (or the home of his parents). If that leaves 20 people homeless, well, serves them right for being related to the guy. As they say on the West Bank - you're not innocent until proven guilty, you're guilty until dead.
You can forgive them for being heavy handed sometimes. They are surrounded by people who would enjoy nothing better than the complete extermination of all Jews.
Actually no, I can't. They'd probably find less people wanted them dead if they didn't punish innocent people for happening to live close to someone who fired a rocket at them.
Collective punishment is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva conventions.
Another part of the laws of war which Israel may have breached is that of proportionality.
A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).
In the most recent conflict, the UN estimates the number of Palestinian militants killed as 557. In contrast to that they estimate the deaths of 1,500 civilians (including 490 children). So 69% of casualties were civilian. Then there are estimates to 11,00 palestinians wounded, 500,000 displaced, 20,000 homes destroyed.
In the instance of the attack on the hospital which they claimed was being used to store rockets they killed 5 patients and injured 70 people, including 30 medical personnel. Was that proportionate to the small military advantage of possibly removing a small rocket stockpile? Considering that it didn't seemingly reduce Hamas' ability to launch rocket attacks, at all?
UN estimates mean nothing. The organization is completely biased against Israel.
Don't want to get your hospital blown up? Don't store rockets in it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Because Israel does not want them to have their own state It's not rocket science or anything.
They already have their own state. It's called Jordan.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So...a terrorist organisation wants to join an International Criminal Court...does anyone else see the irony here? Let Palestine join the ICC I say. And prosecute BOTH sides, but especially Hamas, for any and all crimes committed by their respective government's.
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. When facing a military force you have no hope of defeating on the open field you resort to tactics the larger force will always call terrorism.
And don't pull the "attacks on civilian populations are terrorism" argument to equate them to evil. What do you think the Firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were all about? The "good guys" use terror tactics as well.
No one comes out of history smelling like a rose...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So...a terrorist organisation wants to join an International Criminal Court...does anyone else see the irony here? Let Palestine join the ICC I say. And prosecute BOTH sides, but especially Hamas, for any and all crimes committed by their respective government's.
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. When facing a military force you have no hope of defeating on the open field you resort to tactics the larger force will always call terrorism.
And don't pull the "attacks on civilian populations are terrorism" argument to equate them to evil. What do you think the Firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were all about? The "good guys" use terror tactics as well.
No one comes out of history smelling like a rose...
So a world recognized terrorist organization isn't a terrorist organization
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So...a terrorist organisation wants to join an International Criminal Court...does anyone else see the irony here? Let Palestine join the ICC I say. And prosecute BOTH sides, but especially Hamas, for any and all crimes committed by their respective government's.
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. When facing a military force you have no hope of defeating on the open field you resort to tactics the larger force will always call terrorism.
And don't pull the "attacks on civilian populations are terrorism" argument to equate them to evil. What do you think the Firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were all about? The "good guys" use terror tactics as well.
No one comes out of history smelling like a rose...
Did I say the Allies in world war 2 were the good guys? I'm of the opinion that Dresden and the atomic bombings were war crimes. (And the Blitz, and Warsaw, and so on). So please don't try to play that particular straw man card as if it's an actual valid argument against me.
I don't give a flying feth if one side in a war has no hope of possibly defeating the other side, if they deliberately and explicitly aim to kill innocent non combatant civilians then they are by definition fething EVIL. This applies to Hamas. ISIS. Pretty much all nations in WW2 that carried out indiscriminate bombing campaigns and other campaigns of deliberate violence against non combatent civilian populations. The IRA and Loyalist paramilitary groups.
It is the act itself that it is evil. If you commit evil acts, then you become evil.
I'm sorry, but I just do not share your moral relativism.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: UN estimates mean nothing. The organization is completely biased against Israel.
Why would that be? Because they all hate Jews? Or could it be that they are disgusted by what Israel has done?
Mind you the second option is a bit on the ludicrous side as well, since not a one of those nations can claim to have passed through history without getting some dirt on their lily white gloves, some more than others. Great Britain comes to mind as a rather egregious offender having done things that make Israel look pretty tame by comparison. Germany, nuff said. France did things in Africa that would curl your hair. Spain has it's own skeletons lurking in closets. The list continues dirtying the reputations of all those nations.
Israels one staunch defender, my own nation, has plenty of blood on their hands. Three little letters, CIA, wrap it up in a horrifying bundle of international douche baggery. (sorry if that is one the banned list, nothing else sums it up so well) Perhaps that's why they are more accepting of Israels horrific record and even ignore the fact that Israel attacked one of our warships in international waters. (USS Liberty, if you don't know about it use Google)
The question you have to ask yourself, no matter your side of the Israel debate, is how much blood on your hands is too much? If you can accept the WWII generation used terror bombing campaigns to soften up the enemy then can you really judge Israel that harshly? If you can't accept Israels trail of blood then how can you accept the blood your own nation has spilled over it's history? Is your disgust of Israel based on the fact it's happening in your lifetime? If so why that horror and not the hundred other horror shows playing out across the world?
People suck. It's that simple. They are fully capable of doing the most horrific atrocities against their neighbors for the most flimsy of reasons. They can support their nations involvement in a blood bath because of the promises of politicians, a breed notorious for dishonesty. Given the slightest of reasons they can return to the wild animals from which they evolved and commit horrible atrocities of their very own. Governments are simply the distillation of human desires and if humans are so flawed why wouldn't their governments be flawed as well?
Now, having said that I will admit my own biases in this debate run toward the economic. I only wish my nation let Israel rise or fall on its own, cutting off the foreign aid not because of moral reasons but selfish ones. I'd rather that money be spent on our own needs than Israels. I am consistent in my ideas, I want all foreign aid to stop.
Smells like supper so I will end this here.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't give a flying feth if one side in a war has no hope of possibly defeating the other side, if they deliberately and explicitly aim to kill innocent non combatant civilians then they are by definition fething EVIL.
So the world is evil. Cool. I always thought humanity sucked, nice to have someone share the viewpoint.
BTW, not going for moral relativism. Just saying trying to say one is evil while whitewashing history for another is dishonest.
In regards to the 2014 Isreal Gaza conflict: the loss of life in that region of the world is horrifying; however, I can't honestly blame Isreal for the bulk of the Gaza dead. Did the Israelis hit civilian structures? Yes. Did they kill civilians? Yes. Did they directly target those structures with the express purpose of killing civilians? No. That's the critical part of this whole affair, for me. Hamas fired the rockets from those structures in the hopes that the civilians would wither service as human shields or as a way to garner sympathy from weak stomached westerners.They (Hamas) are the reason this people were killed, and it's them who deserve the blame. To blame Isreal for this is to say that they do not have the right to defend their people, which is fraking nuts. Which one of our nations wouldn't respond the exact same way if they were in that situation? If the people of Gaza want to stop this sort of thing then they need to start policing their people and removing groups like Hamas. Nothing will happen until that's done. That being said, the entire region has huge problems with thousands of marauding nuts raping and murdering their way through the countryside in the name of some form of religious bullhonky, so the entire Islamic world could do with a good kick in the rear end when it comes to keeping their whackos under control.
As far as this tax revenue: Unfortunately for the people in the Palestinian Territories, this is something of a bitting the hand that feeds to sort of deal. Yes, it's the Palestinian Authorities' money, but they're dependent upon Israeli cooperation to get that revenue. The more they agitate Israel the less likely they are to get the money. Sucks, but those are the breaks.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: UN estimates mean nothing. The organization is completely biased against Israel.
Why would that be? Because they all hate Jews? Or could it be that they are disgusted by what Israel has done?
Mind you the second option is a bit on the ludicrous side as well, since not a one of those nations can claim to have passed through history without getting some dirt on their lily white gloves, some more than others. Great Britain comes to mind as a rather egregious offender having done things that make Israel look pretty tame by comparison. Germany, nuff said. France did things in Africa that would curl your hair. Spain has it's own skeletons lurking in closets. The list continues dirtying the reputations of all those nations.
Israels one staunch defender, my own nation, has plenty of blood on their hands. Three little letters, CIA, wrap it up in a horrifying bundle of international douche baggery. (sorry if that is one the banned list, nothing else sums it up so well) Perhaps that's why they are more accepting of Israels horrific record and even ignore the fact that Israel attacked one of our warships in international waters. (USS Liberty, if you don't know about it use Google)
The question you have to ask yourself, no matter your side of the Israel debate, is how much blood on your hands is too much? If you can accept the WWII generation used terror bombing campaigns to soften up the enemy then can you really judge Israel that harshly? If you can't accept Israels trail of blood then how can you accept the blood your own nation has spilled over it's history? Is your disgust of Israel based on the fact it's happening in your lifetime? If so why that horror and not the hundred other horror shows playing out across the world?
People suck. It's that simple. They are fully capable of doing the most horrific atrocities against their neighbors for the most flimsy of reasons. They can support their nations involvement in a blood bath because of the promises of politicians, a breed notorious for dishonesty. Given the slightest of reasons they can return to the wild animals from which they evolved and commit horrible atrocities of their very own. Governments are simply the distillation of human desires and if humans are so flawed why wouldn't their governments be flawed as well?
Now, having said that I will admit my own biases in this debate run toward the economic. I only wish my nation let Israel rise or fall on its own, cutting off the foreign aid not because of moral reasons but selfish ones. I'd rather that money be spent on our own needs than Israels. I am consistent in my ideas, I want all foreign aid to stop.
Smells like supper so I will end this here.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't give a flying feth if one side in a war has no hope of possibly defeating the other side, if they deliberately and explicitly aim to kill innocent non combatant civilians then they are by definition fething EVIL.
So the world is evil. Cool. I always thought humanity sucked, nice to have someone share the viewpoint.
BTW, not going for moral relativism. Just saying trying to say one is evil while whitewashing history for another is dishonest.
It could be for any number of reasons. I suspect that the main reason is that the UNHRC is, year after year, ironically staffed by some of the greatest abusers of human rights on earth. Blaming Israel for everything that's wrong with the world conceals their own countries' transgressions which, individually and annually, far exceed those of Israel in its entire history.
On the issue of foreign aid, as an American citizen I completely agree with you. As someone with an interest in Israel's prosperity, I also agree with you. My cognitive dissonance regarding US aid to Israel comes from the fact that my reasons behind opposing aid as a member of those two identities are essentially opposed - as an American, I don't think that we should be throwing money we don't have at people who either don't need it (Israel), or don't deserve it (insert random country that hates us here), but as an IDF veteran and a Jew I realize that US aid to Israel keeps Israel "on the leash" where the country's military and trade opportunities would be far greater without US aid. And the problem is that Israel exploring those opportunities is bad for America. It's a very complicated issue.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: ... but as an IDF veteran and a Jew. I realize that US aid to Israel keeps Israel "on the leash" where the country's military and trade opportunities would be far greater without US aid. And the problem is that Israel exploring those opportunities is bad for America. It's a very complicated issue.
So you want to be an Israeli, an American, and a Jew all at the same time; after having served in the IDF? That doesn't really work, in my opinion. There are too many demonstrated conflicts of interest.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: ... but as an IDF veteran and a Jew. I realize that US aid to Israel keeps Israel "on the leash" where the country's military and trade opportunities would be far greater without US aid. And the problem is that Israel exploring those opportunities is bad for America. It's a very complicated issue.
So you want to be an Israeli, an American, and a Jew all at the same time? That doesn't really work.
Sure it does.
The IDF accepts foreign volunteers through a variety of programs, both in a combat and non-combat capacity.
The IDF accepts foreign volunteers through a variety of programs, both in a combat and non-combat capacity.
I know, but service in a foreign military has historically been considered tacit to opting out of US citizenship. Additionally, a personal conflict of interest was the subject of my comment.
The IDF accepts foreign volunteers through a variety of programs, both in a combat and non-combat capacity.
I know, but service in a foreign military has historically been considered tacit to opting out of US citizenship. Additionally, a personal conflict of interest was the subject of my comment.
It's not, at least it hasn't been for some time. The United States recognizes the right of an American citizen that holds dual citizenship to serve in the armed forces of that country, so long as they do not engage in hostilities against the United States. This has more or less been the case since Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967. Israel isn't alone in this regard either as both Australia and New Zealand have programs that accept Americans into their armed forces as well. Of course, non-state actors (like terrorist groups) that accept Americans are generally frowned upon by the State Department.
Israel is a somewhat special case because their Law of Return grants Jews citizenship (which the US recognizes), therefore making them eligible for conscription into the IDF.
Where are you seeing a conflict of interest? If anything, it gives him a much more nuanced view of United States-Israeli relations, which I think he demonstrated in his post.
Israel is a somewhat special case because their Law of Return grants Jews citizenship (which the US recognizes), therefore making them eligible for conscription into the IDF.
That's false. You are only under the force of the laws requiring mandatory service once you have exercised the right of return granted by the Law of Return, thereby becoming an Israeli citizen. You are not an Israeli citizen simply because you are a Jew.
Where are you seeing a conflict of interest? If anything, it gives him a much more nuanced view of United States-Israeli relations, which I think he demonstrated in his post.
The maintenance of a dual citizenship, including military service, which could easily be argued to go against the interests of the US.
The IDF accepts foreign volunteers through a variety of programs, both in a combat and non-combat capacity.
I know, but service in a foreign military has historically been considered tacit to opting out of US citizenship. Additionally, a personal conflict of interest was the subject of my comment.
It's not, at least it hasn't been for some time. The United States recognizes the right of an American citizen that holds dual citizenship to serve in the armed forces of that country, so long as they do not engage in hostilities against the United States. This has more or less been the case since Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967. Israel isn't alone in this regard either as both Australia and New Zealand have programs that accept Americans into their armed forces as well. Of course, non-state actors (like terrorist groups) that accept Americans are generally frowned upon by the State Department.
Israel is a somewhat special case because their Law of Return grants Jews citizenship (which the US recognizes), therefore making them eligible for conscription into the IDF.
Where are you seeing a conflict of interest? If anything, it gives him a much more nuanced view of United States-Israeli relations, which I think he demonstrated in his post.
Individual has to renounce their Citizenship in front of Consulate officer and must be current on his/her taxes five years past
A Town Called Malus wrote: Yeah, deliberate attacks on civilians are wrong, every time, and counter productive anyway.
All it does is make your opponent more determined and reduce what sympathy may exist for your cause in the population you are attacking.
They are counterproductive ONLY if you don't wipe out the civilian population or their society. History is replete where attacks on civilians worked just fine.*
*Frazzled is not advocating this, unless you include cats and squirrels. As Rodney the wiener dog says: "the only good cat is a dead cat. "
NuggzTheNinja wrote: ... but as an IDF veteran and a Jew. I realize that US aid to Israel keeps Israel "on the leash" where the country's military and trade opportunities would be far greater without US aid. And the problem is that Israel exploring those opportunities is bad for America. It's a very complicated issue.
So you want to be an Israeli, an American, and a Jew all at the same time; after having served in the IDF? That doesn't really work, in my opinion. There are too many demonstrated conflicts of interest.
Yea buddy. You either like TexMex, or you're don't (and you're then by default the spawn of satan). he who controls the TexMex controls the universe!
NuggzTheNinja wrote: UN estimates mean nothing. The organization is completely biased against Israel.
Why would that be? Because they all hate Jews? Or could it be that they are disgusted by what Israel has done?
A scary amount of the world is still anti-semitic, and surprisingly enough, represented on the UN. Many other countries people are culturally inclined towards being anti-semitic due to a leftover collective/public memory (although thankfully, this is beginning to fade in many of them as generations pass).
It should be noted here that the UN quite regularly uncritically accepts body counts from the likes of Hamas every time there's an Israeli strike, even though names are often duplicated or suspicious, and absolutely no cross checking is done to identify the accuracy of such reports. Yet when Israel launches an investigation into an alleged incident, with a paper trail and evidence gathering, the UN disregards/poo poos it.
That's not to say casualty figures are completely bogus, but merely to illustrate an example as to where the UN gives certain parties an easy ride, and others not so much. Unfortunately, being the United Nations does not equate to being neutral.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So what would people on this forum envisage peace between Israelis and Palestinians to look like?
I would think that a two-state solution of some sort would probably be ideal. What a sustainable version of that would actually look like, I'm not sure. It would be nice to see it happen in my lifetime, but I don't know if that is realistic.
While as a 3rd party a one step seems ideal, the political realities make that untenable for Israel, at least in our lifetime, or until the Zombies come.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: ... but as an IDF veteran and a Jew. I realize that US aid to Israel keeps Israel "on the leash" where the country's military and trade opportunities would be far greater without US aid. And the problem is that Israel exploring those opportunities is bad for America. It's a very complicated issue.
So you want to be an Israeli, an American, and a Jew all at the same time; after having served in the IDF? That doesn't really work, in my opinion. There are too many demonstrated conflicts of interest.
So I don't have your permission? Do you have any idea how smug that is?
Legally speaking there is no problem with being all of the above. If you enlist with the intent of renouncing your citizenship or become an officer, then it becomes a problem.
Individual has to renounce their Citizenship in front of Consulate officer and must be current on his/her taxes five years past
Most of the time. Technically you can't take an oath under the authority of a foreign government and remain a US citizen which, as I understand, is required of people who serve in the IDF.
So I don't have your permission? Do you have any idea how smug that is?
Yes, but I also know I care more about the US than I do about Israel and that I don't like the fact that the US essentially gives a free pass US citizens who want to go fight with the IDF.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: ... but as an IDF veteran and a Jew. I realize that US aid to Israel keeps Israel "on the leash" where the country's military and trade opportunities would be far greater without US aid. And the problem is that Israel exploring those opportunities is bad for America. It's a very complicated issue.
So you want to be an Israeli, an American, and a Jew all at the same time; after having served in the IDF? That doesn't really work, in my opinion. There are too many demonstrated conflicts of interest.
So I don't have your permission? Do you have any idea how smug that is?
Legally speaking there is no problem with being all of the above. If you enlist with the intent of renouncing your citizenship or become an officer, then it becomes a problem.
Again the essential question is simple. Do you like TexMex, or are you one of those godless commie pinkoes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: The bottom line is that the Palestinians are not free, and they have an entitlement to self determination and freedom.
First this needs to be sorted out, then the other matters can be addressed.
only if they quit killing the other guys. If they were an independent country, Israel could legally declare declare war against them for aggressions, well, daily.
You can't be independent and still attack your neighbors without a response.
So I don't have your permission? Do you have any idea how smug that is?
Yes, but I also know I care more about the US than I do about Israel and that I don't like the fact that the US essentially gives a free pass US citizens who want to go fight with the IDF.
US citizens have a free pass to join any non-hostile foreign military as long as they abide by those restrictions.
Also you might be surprised to hear the reasons people have for fighting in the IDF as opposed to the US military. Most of the Americans in my unit returned to the US after serving. Everyone has their own reasons...mine were mainly practical rather than ideological or political.
Frazzled, of course I like TexMex. I like it even better if it comes from a grimy food cart! 'Merica
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So what would people on this forum envisage peace between Israelis and Palestinians to look like?
Israel moves to Montana or South Dakota. Seriously, the whole country could move into one of those states and it would be twenty years before any of the locals noticed the new people. Meanwhile, the governments of the Middle East (including Hamas) have to come to terms with the fact that using Israel as a scapegoat to deflect criticism and focus hatred on doesn't work when Israel isn't there anymore...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So what would people on this forum envisage peace between Israelis and Palestinians to look like?
Israel moves to Montana or South Dakota. Seriously, the whole country could move into one of those states and it would be twenty years before any of the locals noticed the new people. Meanwhile, the governments of the Middle East (including Hamas) have to come to terms with the fact that using Israel as a scapegoat to deflect criticism and focus hatred on doesn't work when Israel isn't there anymore...
I proposed McAllen myself. Its hot, with beach property, two neutral borders, and Israel could fit onto the King Ranch with room to spare.
So I don't have your permission? Do you have any idea how smug that is?
Yes, but I also know I care more about the US than I do about Israel and that I don't like the fact that the US essentially gives a free pass US citizens who want to go fight with the IDF.
US citizens have a free pass to join any non-hostile foreign military as long as they abide by those restrictions.
Also you might be surprised to hear the reasons people have for fighting in the IDF as opposed to the US military. Most of the Americans in my unit returned to the US after serving. Everyone has their own reasons...mine were mainly practical rather than ideological or political.
Here's a question as you're closer to the source. What keeps Israel from deconstructing the Wailing Wall and reconstructing it somewhere else, say, south of Fredricksburg?
So I don't have your permission? Do you have any idea how smug that is?
Yes, but I also know I care more about the US than I do about Israel and that I don't like the fact that the US essentially gives a free pass US citizens who want to go fight with the IDF.
US citizens have a free pass to join any non-hostile foreign military as long as they abide by those restrictions.
Also you might be surprised to hear the reasons people have for fighting in the IDF as opposed to the US military. Most of the Americans in my unit returned to the US after serving. Everyone has their own reasons...mine were mainly practical rather than ideological or political.
Frazzled, of course I like TexMex. I like it even better if it comes from a grimy food cart! 'Merica
Grimy food carts are the best... I'm so hungry now.
Orlanth wrote: The bottom line is that the Palestinians are not free, and they have an entitlement to self determination and freedom.
First this needs to be sorted out, then the other matters can be addressed.
only if they quit killing the other guys. If they were an independent country, Israel could legally declare declare war against them for aggressions, well, daily.
You can't be independent and still attack your neighbors without a response.
Frazzie, Israel is attacked by small numbers of very angry people, who have been left with nothing and living under oppression for far longer than most Dakkaites have been alive.
Israel is a state however, an it launches brutal attacks as a nation state, often against civilians and non participants of violence. Some are bombed, some are shot, some have their homes bulldozed.
Also not all of Israels attacks are responses to rockets, Israel also uses its intelligence apparatus to remove Palestinians and other opponents that don't want.
Lets look at it another way:
Imagine for a moment that Texas was powerless and the Mexicans were able to overfly your home, bomb your neighbours, and bulldoze your house. Perhaps your neighbours were killed as a result of this, some maybe were Texan militants with a religious hate for Mexicans, but most victims were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So Frazzie, you have lost your family to an airstrike, your Weiner Dogs too, nd your home has been systemically bulldozed because it was in the other sides way. You are denied access to most of the infrastructure that makes life worth living.
Would you settle for that, would it be ok? Keeping in mind most Palestinians have been living under subjugation since 1967.
This is the kicker, most of us have very little recognance of the level of subjugation and state sanctioned bigotry involved, so much so it may be difficult to conceptualise the plight of the Palestianisn for themselves.
The sooner that Palestinians get human rights, the better. Israel is a alleged western democracy, they are supposed to have higher standards than terrorists, not the same or in all probability lower.
Frazzie, Israel is attacked by small numbers of very angry people, who have been left with nothing and living under oppression for far longer than most Dakkaites have been alive. Israel is a state however, an it launches brutal attacks as a nation state, often against civilians and non participants of violence. Some are bombed, some are shot, some have their homes bulldozed. Also not all of Israels attacks are responses to rockets, Israel also uses its intelligence apparatus to remove Palestinians and other opponents that don't want.
Lets look at it another way: Imagine for a moment that Texas was powerless and the Mexicans were able to overfly your home, bomb your neighbours, and bulldoze your house. Perhaps your neighbours were killed as a result of this, some maybe were Texan militants with a religious hate for Mexicans, but most victims were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So Frazzie, you have lost your family to an airstrike, your Weiner Dogs too, nd your home has been systemically bulldozed because it was in the other sides way. You are denied access to most of the infrastructure that makes life worth living.
Would you settle for that, would it be ok? Keeping in mind most Palestinians have been living under subjugation since 1967. This is the kicker, most of us have very little recognance of the level of subjugation and state sanctioned bigotry involved, so much so it may be difficult to conceptualise the plight of the Palestianisn for themselves.
The sooner that Palestinians get human rights, the better. Israel is a alleged western democracy, they are supposed to have higher standards than terrorists, not the same or in all probability lower.
And with that mentaility nothing will change until everyone on one side is dead. Eventually Israel will tire of the endless tit for tat and finish it ISIS style or they will be nuked and nuke everyone else. Everyone has a grievous from some time in that part of the world. Its an excuse, and that region has never needed much of an excuse to commit mass homicide.
djones520 wrote: There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.
I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.
Alternatively both sides can rightfully pull the victim card.
So what? Do they collectively want to act like kids and keep fighting, or act like adults and stop?
Again its really simple.
*Gaza respects the borders of Israel and quits killing Israelis.
*Israel respects the borders of Gaza and quits killing Gazans.
They don't have to do do anything else. They don't have to love each other, permit trade with each, do anything. Just leave each other alone. Its not a novel concept.
In some parts the wall has increased response time of ambulances from 10 minutes to 110 minutes.
Or cut off Palestinians from their own farmland.
And has repeatedly gone beyond Israels internationally recognised borders, effectively annexing new land.
So why does Putin get criticised and sanctions imposed for stealing land from Ukraine whilst Israel is ignored?
Firstly, anyone who reads the papers or watches the BBC in Britain can hardly claim Israel gets 'ignored'. They get regularly lampooned to an amazing extent.
Secondly, because Ukraine never launched missile attacks at Russia, or dug assault tunnels for the purpose of abducting children for use as hostages.
This isn't a black and white issue, and trying to make it into one is disingenuous.
In some parts the wall has increased response time of ambulances from 10 minutes to 110 minutes.
Or cut off Palestinians from their own farmland.
When they had access to those infrastructures, they routinely used that access to facilitate and perpetrate terror attacks.
The building of the wall caused those attacks to drop massively (from 73 to 12), with an accompanying massive drop is resultant civilian casualties.
The Palestinians "people" always brings these things onto themselves, the first elections that they had, they use that power to vote in a terrorist organization whose sole purpose is the elimination of Israel... And I used "" because when I talk about people, I'm talking about the collective, I firmly believe that the vast majority of Palestinians only wishes to live and raise their kids in piece and prosperity, but they need to realise that to do this they have to stop supporting terrorists both actively and passively.
So why does Putin get criticised and sanctions imposed for stealing land from Ukraine whilst Israel is ignored?
Israel is constantly criticised for that. O.o
But not in any meaningful way.
If the US cut off its military support and aid until Israel pulls back to its own borders, then that would be something.
OR, unfettered by outside restraint Israel does what countries did pre 20th century-wipe out their attacker utterly and take over the land. It is an option.
Frazzled wrote: And with that mentaility nothing will change until everyone on one side is dead. Eventually Israel will tire of the endless tit for tat and finish it ISIS style or they will be nuked and nuke everyone else.
Or everyone can just stop.
Good response.
You have to look at the grand strategy.
Israel relied on the US veto for support, but the US government is losing patience with Israel having seen the support as being rather one sided. Israel can and will go it alone.
In Israel's defence if they let down their guard they would be driven into the sea.
However this is mostly due to a lot of Israels actions post 1947 and following to the present day.
It will take a change in Israeli policy to make peace happen, rather than a change in Palesitinian policy.
peace is possible, peace with Egypt has held, peace with Jordan is holding. Peace with Syria wont hold because Israel views territory to the north as expansion room, and has been conducting unilateral unprovoked bombing of Syria recently.
It says a lot that Nretanyahu was pissed off at Obama for 'removing sraelis deniability over its bombing campaign in Syria'.
http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-furious-at-obama-for-leaking-syria-strike-2013-11?IR=T This says so much - that Israel conducts unilateral aggression followed by political denials, often under the context that ayt accusation is anti-Semitic.
Lebanon is also systemically constantly destabilised by Israel.
So if Israel can have peace on half its borders, can it have peace on all its borders?
What about the Palestinians?
Rocket attacks are largely a nuisance,, and are caused by a number of fanatics most of whome have personal grudges. This is easy to understand in terms of insurrections, Israel loses approx half a dozen to rockets or ground forces moving into Gaza, at the same time Israeli airstrikes, artillery and ground forces kill well over a thousand, a large number of whom are not combatants. This makes more people angry enough to pick up guns.
In terms of a counter-insurgency or peace keeping action its historically a very poor strategy. However the Israelis are certainly not stupid, and they are not following a counter-insurgency or peace keeping strategy. Israeli strategic policy is evidently not one of peace keeping but one of annihilation.
Israel could have peace with the Palestians and conduct peace keeping operations if it wanted to, it has the will and the expertise, but this is not what they want. The Israeli government doesnt want the Palestinians pacified, they want them gone.
When you look at it this way, you will see that their military strategy makes lot of sense. As Israeli military strategies usually make sense. Thing is Hamas are helping by their antics.
Hamas needs to do is realise this and start a Ghandiesque peace movement, Israel can't stop that, but it can and will prevent one from starting; because Israel will constantly keep the Palestinians on the boil, and they have many means of doing this. Closing the borders to trade, and removing infrastructure are favourite techniques, and rile the Palestinians.
If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.
Meanwhile the bulldozers keep working in Gaza, and Israel finds an excuse to create a new settlement and destroy a Palestinian community. And these land grabs are not necessarily linked to sources of rocket attacks, but to expediency. It's a slow burn takeover.
There is a religious aspect to the strategy, which is not lost in hard line Israelis:
Exodus 23:30
Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.
At this point, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been going on so long, and gotten so bloody, that BOTH sides can legitimately claim to be the victim. Both sides can accurately and truthfully call the other side the villain. There is no point in the leadership of either side actually working for peace. It would be political suicide in Israel, and possibly literal suicide in the Palestinian territories. Israel is strong enough to take what it wants, when it wants, so why waste time pursuing peace? Hamas has a nearly limitless supply of very willing fighters and a whole bunch of countries willing to supply arms and aid, so why waste time pursuing peace?
If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.
That is because all of those things will be used to smuggle in weapons or otherwise to attack Israel. It takes colossal stupidity to think that allowing these things would be acceptable in the light of that.
If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.
If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.
That is because all of those things will be used to smuggle in weapons or otherwise to attack Israel. It takes colossal stupidity to think that allowing these things would be acceptable in the light of that.
If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.
What about the case where Israel has blocked the Red Cross from bringing in shelters for palestinians?
If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.
As I said up-thread Hamas is not the PNA (nor is the PNA the PLO), and the argument you're making could easily be made regarding the conservative, Jewish population of Israel.
If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.
That is because all of those things will be used to smuggle in weapons or otherwise to attack Israel. It takes colossal stupidity to think that allowing these things would be acceptable in the light of that.
If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.
What about the case where Israel has blocked the Red Cross from bringing in shelters for palestinians?
If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.
That is because all of those things will be used to smuggle in weapons or otherwise to attack Israel. It takes colossal stupidity to think that allowing these things would be acceptable in the light of that.
Actually you got it backward.
Many of the goods refused import have no military significance. Some do, yes, but not others.
Tinned food was banned from import into Gaza, but frozen food was permitted mainly to prevent Palestinians from stockpiling in case of power failure, and to make Palestinians exceptionally vulnerable to power failure.
As fo holding up containments of fresh flowers and fruit for two weeks for a 'security check' cant reall be pushed as a security measure, for astart its an export. the only reason to do this is to deny an income to the Palestinians concerned.
The power station official murdered by Mossad was not a terrorist, he did however have the skills to keep the power station working in Gaza. Why target him unless you don't want Gazans to developan infrastructure.
Too much heavy handedness is 'justified' by security measures, wheras anyone who knows anything about intenal security knows that the best security it not to inflame the populace. A good example was the Vietnam war compared to that in Malaysia. Israel is doing the direct opposite to the tried and tested counter insurgency strategy..
If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.
Hamas cant have peace even if it wanted, most Gazans are denied any human rights or quality of life, and are long on the numbers of people they know who have died or lost their homes.
How can the Palestinians realistically ask for peace under these circumstances?
Is the Red Cross, one of the most widely recognised and respected humanitarian organisations in the world, now doing a sideline in arms smuggling?
That story isn't really true, or actually it is true but the article doesn't tell the whole story: the "shelters" weren't meant to be aid for the Palestinians, they were mean't to erect a tent city as a political protest against Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
Is the Red Cross, one of the most widely recognised and respected humanitarian organisations in the world, now doing a sideline in arms smuggling?
That story isn't really true, or actually it is true but the article doesn't tell the whole story: the "shelters" weren't meant to be aid for the Palestinians, they were mean't to erect a tent city as a political protest against Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
Israel demolished houses, the Red Cross was trying to provide shelter to those whose houses had been destroyed. If Israel doesn't want a tent city it shouldn't bulldoze peoples homes.
djones520 wrote: There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.
I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.
No, it means that literally everything in your post is factually wrong.
Care to post something intelligent for a change.
If you want to criticise my comments tell us why they are wrong. Some evidence would be nice.
You first, since everything that you posted in this thread so far has been tin foil level speculation without any shred of evidence to support it.
I have included one linked quote already. Indicating that Israel doesn't want peace with it neighbours and wants deniability when it conducts unilateral unprovked attacks.
This sets the scene for the current Israeli governments mentality.
And as the ultimate sources was Netanyahu, and Obama it doesn't count as 'tin foil'.
All you have posted if flat denial, which only makes sense if you have nothing intelligent to say.
Its also a statement. "You continue to bomb our schools and we'll deny the Red Cross coming in to patch your worthless hides up"
Which is a breach of international law and should be punished accordingly.
The concept of International Law is simply moronic. A law which has no one to enforce it or even define it is less than nothing. You might as well just try to say X countries law applies to Y, which is clearly nonsense.
djones520 wrote: There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.
I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.
No, it means that literally everything in your post is factually wrong.
Care to post something intelligent for a change.
If you want to criticise my comments tell us why they are wrong. Some evidence would be nice.
You first, since everything that you posted in this thread so far has been tin foil level speculation without any shred of evidence to support it.
I have included one linked quote already. Indicating that Israel doesn't want peace with it neighbours and wants deniability when it conducts unilateral unprovked attacks.
Preemptively striking someone stockpiling weapons that you are at war with isn't unprovoked.
Is the Red Cross, one of the most widely recognised and respected humanitarian organisations in the world, now doing a sideline in arms smuggling?
That story isn't really true, or actually it is true but the article doesn't tell the whole story: the "shelters" weren't meant to be aid for the Palestinians, they were mean't to erect a tent city as a political protest against Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
Israel demolished houses, the Red Cross was trying to provide shelter to those whose houses had been destroyed. If Israel doesn't want a tent city it shouldn't bulldoze peoples homes.
Its easier to assume everyone involved is lying to your face. You'll be less disappointed.
How can the Palestinians realistically ask for peace under these circumstances?
Easy. If you want to stop more killing you vote for peace. If you want the killing to continue, you don't.
I have included one linked quote already. Indicating that Israel doesn't want peace with it neighbours and wants deniability when it conducts unilateral unprovked attacks.
This sets the scene for the current Israeli governments mentality.
And as the ultimate sources was Netanyahu, and Obama it doesn't count as 'tin foil'.
All you have posted if flat denial, which only makes sense if you have nothing intelligent to say.
Actually, the link that you posted says that Israel was outraged by a US official leaking information about covert air strikes that they were carrying in Syria, information that supposedly the Israelis had volunteered to the US. They say nothing about the reasons for those air strikes, maybe they were worried that those AA missiles might fall into ISIS hands, since, you know, Syria is in the midst of a civil war and most rebel groups will happily use any captured weapons against Israel or sell them to someone that will.
You jumping to the conclusion that the only reason for the air strikes was because Israel somehow wishes to conquer the whole middle east as part of some Zionist hidden agenda is the "tin foil hat" part.
Israel demolished houses, the Red Cross was trying to provide shelter to those whose houses had been destroyed. If Israel doesn't want a tent city it shouldn't bulldoze peoples homes.
If the Red Cross just wants to help people then they should stop associating themselves with initiatives that are just meant to be political statements.
Hsve you heard of the six day war.
Israel still holds onto sovereign Syrian territory, and has been condemned for doing so in the UN.
I suppose the Golan Heights is a figment of my imagination too.
Also Syria is a sovereign state, and not (currently fighting Israel). Israel was pissed off at the US to removing deniability. Also Obama is mentioned in the article.
As for your hamfisted 'justification', the targets were SAM sites, not chemical weapons sites, there is a difference you know. SAM's are there to shoot down drones or other aircraft, and have no capability for chemical launch. Syria would use other missiles for this.
Israel was deliberately targeting Syrian air defence infrastructure, it was an unprovoked act of aggression, in other words business as usual.
Still waiting for you to contribute somethng intelligent, shall we call off the search?
Israel demolished houses, the Red Cross was trying to provide shelter to those whose houses had been destroyed. If Israel doesn't want a tent city it shouldn't bulldoze peoples homes.
If the Red Cross just wants to help people then they should stop associating themselves with initiatives that are just meant to be political statements.
That is low, even for you.
So what you are saying is that the Red Cross (actually Red Crescent) should withdraw all humanitarian support in situations where anyone makes issue of the political ramifactions of a calamity.
Or even if you are just attributing this unilaterally to Palestinians its pretty despicable.
CAn someone summarize what is going on exactly? Sorry I read the articles and my brain botched it up. And I don't want to comment unless I know a thing or two about the Israel Situation. (which I don't)
So basically the Palestines are accusing Israelis with committing warcrimes?
I mean thats nothing new. Considering what the Israelis have done in the past few years.
(Along with the palestines doing many things which don't make any sense)
Hsve you heard of the six day war.
Israel still holds onto sovereign Syrian territory, and has been condemned for doing so in the UN.
I suppose the Golan Heights is a figment of my imagination too.
Also Syria is a sovereign state, and not (currently fighting Israel). Israel was pissed off at the US to removing deniability. Also Obama is mentioned in the article.
As for your hamfisted 'justification', the targets were SAM sites, not chemical weapons sites, there is a difference you know. SAM's are there to shoot down drones or other aircraft, and have no capability for chemical launch. Syria would use other missiles for this.
Israel was deliberately targeting Syrian air defence infrastructure, it was an unprovoked act of aggression, in other words business as usual.
Still waiting for you to contribute somethng intelligent, shall we call off the search?
An unprovoked war that was declared on them by aggressive neighbors.
That land is theirs, fair and square. If Syria wants it back, they can come and take it.
Asherian Command wrote: CAn someone summarize what is going on exactly? Sorry I read the articles and my brain botched it up. And I don't want to comment unless I know a thing or two about the Israel Situation. (which I don't)
So basically the Palestines are accusing Israelis with committing warcrimes?
I mean thats nothing new. Considering what the Israelis have done in the past few years.
(Along with the palestines doing many things which don't make any sense)
Simple. You have this patch of dirt. Its worthless dirt. Even the molemen don't want any of this dirt. But these people were bron on this worthless dirt and are fighting over it.
Each side claims the other is the spawn of satan's arse hole.
Meanwhile the rest of the world just sees them fighting over a piece of dirt. Its much less important than the dirt they happen to be fighting for.
And this is why the dogs will win. They don't care about dirt. They only care about tasty treats.
Asherian Command wrote: CAn someone summarize what is going on exactly? Sorry I read the articles and my brain botched it up. And I don't want to comment unless I know a thing or two about the Israel Situation. (which I don't)
So basically the Palestines are accusing Israelis with committing warcrimes?
I mean thats nothing new. Considering what the Israelis have done in the past few years.
(Along with the palestines doing many things which don't make any sense)
Simple. You have this patch of dirt. Its worthless dirt. Even the molemen don't want any of this dirt. But these people were bron on this worthless dirt and are fighting over it.
Each side claims the other is the spawn of satan's arse hole.
Meanwhile the rest of the world just sees them fighting over a piece of dirt. Its much less important than the dirt they happen to be fighting for.
And this is why the dogs will win. They don't care about dirt. They only care about tasty treats.
Oh so thats what this thread is over.
You would of thought that people would of left those countries. As far as I can see. There is basically no point to living in your homeland as long as it is surrounded by people who want to kill you.
Asherian Command wrote: CAn someone summarize what is going on exactly? Sorry I read the articles and my brain botched it up. And I don't want to comment unless I know a thing or two about the Israel Situation. (which I don't)
So basically the Palestines are accusing Israelis with committing warcrimes?
I mean thats nothing new. Considering what the Israelis have done in the past few years.
(Along with the palestines doing many things which don't make any sense)
Simple. You have this patch of dirt. Its worthless dirt. Even the molemen don't want any of this dirt. But these people were bron on this worthless dirt and are fighting over it.
Each side claims the other is the spawn of satan's arse hole.
Meanwhile the rest of the world just sees them fighting over a piece of dirt. Its much less important than the dirt they happen to be fighting for.
And this is why the dogs will win. They don't care about dirt. They only care about tasty treats.
Oh so thats what this thread is over.
You would of thought that people would of left those countries. As far as I can see. There is basically no point to living in your homeland as long as it is surrounded by people who want to kill you.
The Palestinians can't actually leave because the neighboring Arab countries refuse to accept them as refugees. If they had, there would almost nobody left except the terrorists.
Alternately, they could accept living in Israel as Israeli citizens, but that's unacceptable to them. Even though the Arabs who live in Israel have running water, electricity, food, jobs, and security.
Asherian Command wrote: CAn someone summarize what is going on exactly? Sorry I read the articles and my brain botched it up. And I don't want to comment unless I know a thing or two about the Israel Situation. (which I don't)
So basically the Palestines are accusing Israelis with committing warcrimes?
I mean thats nothing new. Considering what the Israelis have done in the past few years.
(Along with the palestines doing many things which don't make any sense)
Simple. You have this patch of dirt. Its worthless dirt. Even the molemen don't want any of this dirt. But these people were bron on this worthless dirt and are fighting over it. Each side claims the other is the spawn of satan's arse hole.
Meanwhile the rest of the world just sees them fighting over a piece of dirt. Its much less important than the dirt they happen to be fighting for. And this is why the dogs will win. They don't care about dirt. They only care about tasty treats.
Oh so thats what this thread is over.
You would of thought that people would of left those countries. As far as I can see. There is basically no point to living in your homeland as long as it is surrounded by people who want to kill you.
I agree actually. Irrespective of right/wrong, If I were a Dad in that area, and I could I'd get out of there. AS Grey templer noted thats really hard for the Palestinians. Its hard for the Syrians, the Kurds, etc. etc. A lot of people stuck in bad places.
Its almost like humans create these nightmares themselves. I blame the evil THEM!
Pfft. More back and forth between idiots trying to make a textbook example of a vicious cycle. Until someone breaks out and seriously considers peace, nothing will change (apart from the body count).
Both the US and Isreal are hypocritical in their dealings with Palestine.
They demand that the they cease 'terrorist' activities and engage in civilized debate.
However any attempt by Palestine to engage in such activities with the international community are blocked by the US and Israel....because they are terrorists.
I would call this circular logic idiocy, however it is more malicious than that.
All the while this is happening Israel is displacing more people from their ancestral homes, claiming land that clearly does not belong to them. The palestinians are forced into the more inhospitable areas of the region, with poor farmland and scarce water. Many are forced into refugee camps.
The longer Israel and the US can deny the Palestinians their right as a nation, the longer they can abuse them without fear of consequence, and further their own objectives in the region.
Absolutely disgusting.
Palestinian 'terrorists' shoot rockets at Israel. Sure they do. If I was in their position I would too.
If my country was being occupied and taken away, my friends and relatives forced off their land and to live of handouts inside a refugee camp, if a hostile force was committing a slow campaign of genocide, whilst the rest of the 'developed world' looked on and does nothing, you could be damn sure I would do something.
It is very obvious to the so called militants that diplomacy is clearly not working, as diplomacy is being perverted by the US and Israel.
This latest news story is simply another example of this. Israel is angry that Palestine is trying to appeal to a higher authority and break the status quo through diplomatic means. They feel the best way to 'persuade' the Palestinians that this is not a good idea, is to break more laws and further degrade the life of the people in the area.
Alternately, they could accept living in Israel as Israeli citizens, but that's unacceptable to them
Are you being serious? Really?
How about my country comes and claims your country. Takes its land. Puts it's people into camps. And then tells you that you should be disregard all of your culture, your rights and property, and accept that you are now citizens of my country. Sounds good right?
Alternately, they could accept living in Israel as Israeli citizens, but that's unacceptable to them
Are you being serious? Really?
How about my country comes and claims your country. Takes its land. Puts it's people into camps. And then tells you that you should be disregard all of your culture, your rights and property, and accept that you are now citizens of my country. Sounds good right?
Because that is what you are suggesting.
1) It was not the Palestinians land to begin with. It was British land that was given to the Israelis.
2) You make it seem like the Israelis are putting the Palestinians into Concentration Camps. They're not even remotely close to that.
3) Israel is a pretty free society, certainly more than the people surrounding them, which includes such highlights of human depravity as having guidelines for how to treat your captured sex slaves.
Something about how the middle east diets lack something which is found in marmite in large amounts. Said something (I forget what) leaves people irritable if they don't get it.
So, give them all lots of marmite.
Edit: Googled, it's Zinc, which we get in yeast, but in the middle east they apparently eat unleavened bread which lacks it?
Point one is a pile of bollocks. The land might have been under British administration, but it was owned and settled by the people who friggin' lived there!
Point two is an attempt to undermine his argument.
Point three tries to conflate Palestine and ISIS, which is a neat trick but doesn't work on anyone with half a brain.
The longer Israel and the US can deny the Palestinians their right as a nation, the longer they can abuse them without fear of consequence, and further their own objectives in the region.
Absolutely disgusting.
Palestinian 'terrorists' shoot rockets at Israel. Sure they do. If I was in their position I would too.
If my country was being occupied and taken away, my friends and relatives forced off their land and to live of handouts inside a refugee camp, if a hostile force was committing a slow campaign of genocide, whilst the rest of the 'developed world' looked on and does nothing, you could be damn sure I would do something.
It is very obvious to the so called militants that diplomacy is clearly not working, as diplomacy is being perverted by the US and Israel.
This latest news story is simply another example of this. Israel is angry that Palestine is trying to appeal to a higher authority and break the status quo through diplomatic means. They feel the best way to 'persuade' the Palestinians that this is not a good idea, is to break more laws and further degrade the life of the people in the area.
Alternately, they could accept living in Israel as Israeli citizens, but that's unacceptable to them
Are you being serious? Really?
How about my country comes and claims your country. Takes its land. Puts it's people into camps. And then tells you that you should be disregard all of your culture, your rights and property, and accept that you are now citizens of my country. Sounds good right?
Because that is what you are suggesting.
Well there went the thread. I was looking forward to a thread where it wasn't the US's fault.
Frankly we all know its Norway's fault. Yes all of it.
All evilz of the world = USA
USA came from UK
UK came from England conquering Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Mordor that is Liverpool.
England was united and conquered by the French. (Germans bear with me now and don't immediately invade them)
However these were French Normans
French Normandy was created by the Norse
The Norse came from Norway and Sweden
Therefore its all the fault of the Norse and Swedes.
However the Swedes also created he Swedish Bikini Team so all is forgiven.
MrDwhitey wrote: Something about how the middle east diets lack something which is found in marmite in large amounts. Said something (I forget what) leaves people irritable if they don't get it.
So, give them all lots of marmite.
Edit: Googled, it's Zinc, which we get in yeast, but in the middle east they apparently eat unleavened bread which lacks it?
Well... it's worth a shot. After how many years of bloodshed, it can't hurt to try something new, right?
An unprovoked war that was declared on them by aggressive neighbors.
That land is theirs, fair and square. If Syria wants it back, they can come and take it.
Ad Victor de spoliis
In June 1967 Israel launched an invasion of Syria and Egypt, it was a sneak attack. Jordan joined in the fighting of its own accord, but was scheduled for attack anyway.
Syria attacked to recover the Golan heights in October 1973.
The UN considers the Golan heights occupied territory.
Try learning some history, then you won't look exceptionally ignorant.
MrDwhitey wrote: Something about how the middle east diets lack something which is found in marmite in large amounts. Said something (I forget what) leaves people irritable if they don't get it.
So, give them all lots of marmite.
Edit: Googled, it's Zinc, which we get in yeast, but in the middle east they apparently eat unleavened bread which lacks it?
Well... it's worth a shot. After how many years of bloodshed, it can't hurt to try something new, right?
Well, it would work if Israel didn't just seize all the Marmite that we try to send
Kind of like California, kind of like Poland, kind of like....anywhere.
Sorry no.
Wales was conquered in the 13th century, if it was conquered in 1967 England/UK would have no right to hold onto it.
Someone tell the N. Vietnamese that.
Johnson tried, but... Communism. Also North Vietnam re-unified the country. it is retrospectively valid. There isn't a noticable seperatist movement in Vietnam, its one country and one people. Just two economo-political bloks back at the time.
An unprovoked war that was declared on them by aggressive neighbors.
That land is theirs, fair and square. If Syria wants it back, they can come and take it.
Ad Victor de spoliis
In June 1967 Israel launched an invasion of Syria and Egypt, it was a sneak attack. Jordan joined in the fighting of its own accord, but was scheduled for attack anyway.
Syria attacked to recover the Golan heights in October 1973.
The UN considers the Golan heights occupied territory.
Try learning some history, then you won't look exceptionally ignorant.
In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.
1) Britain did give some land, but not all of it. Much of the land occupied today by israel was not given to them by the British. It was taken forcibly. Even then, the claim that the land was British is morally shaky. Palestine is as much British as America is.
2) http://www.nfaragallah.com/about-me/ Tell me how this is not a ghetto. People caged into a small area with poor living conditions and little to no water or food. Read how the author describes her life in the camp.
3) Britain had one of the most developed societies in the word in the 19th century, so that made colonialism, slavery and exploitation totally acceptable. Nice logic. Please don't pretend the military action in Palestine is for anything other than the expansion of Israel. The lives of normal Palestinians are irrelevant to this.
Frazzled: The US openly denies the Palestinians the rights to join the ICC, as well as their bids to become a recognised nation. Normally the only 2 countries to do so are the US and Israel. So please don't claim that this is some general attack on America. This is a genuine and legitimate citisism of American foreign policy.
In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.
Technically, this was the re-unification of what had, only two decades prior, been one single country. Yeah, it was violent. No, it wasn't pretty. But overall, if the West had been able to accept that Ho Chi Minh legitimately defeated the French, and not try to call do-over, there would've been no need for the invasion.
Seriously, just because some land was administrated by the British Empire, it did not make the private property rights of people living on the land obsolete. Whatever about their "moral" right to the land, they had no real legal right to it. It wasn't owned by the crown or something. People owned properties, businesses and agricultural land in that region.
Frazzled: The US openly denies the Palestinians the rights to join the ICC, as well as their bids to become a recognised nation. Normally the only 2 countries to do so are the US and Israel. So please don't claim that this is some general attack on America. This is a genuine and legitimate citisism of American foreign policy.
The argument is that its using the UN to get Palestinian concerns addressed but none of the Israelis, so your argument is, as the British say, bullocks.
In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.
Technically, this was the re-unification of what had, only two decades prior, been one single country. Yeah, it was violent. No, it wasn't pretty. But overall, if the West had been able to accept that Ho Chi Minh legitimately defeated the French, and not try to call do-over, there would've been no need for the invasion.
The Isrealis were just re-unifying parts of their country broken off by the ROMans.
1) It was not the Palestinians land to begin with. It was British land that was given to the Israelis.
2) You make it seem like the Israelis are putting the Palestinians into Concentration Camps. They're not even remotely close to that.
3) Israel is a pretty free society, certainly more than the people surrounding them, which includes such highlights of human depravity as having guidelines for how to treat your captured sex slaves.
Some serious straw clutching in the comments above.
1. It was Ottoman Turkish land, handed to the British as a mandate for eventual handover. Palestine was not formally part of the Empire.
It was NOT given to the Israelis, it was put forward for partition for a dual state solution. This would likely have worked but the chief diplomat involved Count Bernadotte was assassinated.
The UK abstained in the UN process for the development of the Palestinian territory an over the vote for the creation of the state of Israel out of neutrality.
2. Gaza is not a concentration camp, people organising concentration camps tend to police them from the inside and tend not to bomb them. Concntration camps also expand as more inmates are put in them, Palestianian land is getting smaller as it's salami sliced away.
There are other differences.
I still wouldn't call Gaza a concentration camp, but there are some comparisons to hostile ghettoization, including forced enclosure, and deliberate resource tampering.
3. A common piece of propaganda. Israel is a free society if you are Jewish, its not so free if you are Israeli Arab, and rights for Arab residents are being eroded. Jordan is a decent place to live, as are most of the gulf city states. Turkey is a democratic state with a better human rights record than Israel, but has its issues.
Israel tauts itself as the only democracy in the middle east.
Thats bs for a start, even if we exclude Cyprus. A democracy offers voting rights for all people born there, Israel denies any form of citizenship for a very large minority of people born there, and offers second class citizenship a further portion of others based on their race and religion. Apartheid South Africa was a 'democracy' too.
Big Blind Bill wrote: 1) Britain did give some land, but not all of it. Much of the land occupied today by israel was not given to them by the British. It was taken forcibly. Even then, the claim that the land was British is morally shaky. Palestine is as much British as America is.
2) http://www.nfaragallah.com/about-me/ Tell me how this is not a ghetto. People caged into a small area with poor living conditions and little to no water or food. Read how the author describes her life in the camp.
3) Britain had one of the most developed societies in the word in the 19th century, so that made colonialism, slavery and exploitation totally acceptable. Nice logic. Please don't pretend the military action in Palestine is for anything other than the expansion of Israel. The lives of normal Palestinians are irrelevant to this.
Frazzled: The US openly denies the Palestinians the rights to join the ICC, as well as their bids to become a recognised nation. Normally the only 2 countries to do so are the US and Israel. So please don't claim that this is some general attack on America. This is a genuine and legitimate citisism of American foreign policy.
On #2
She had it made compare to the Refugee camps in/around Iraq and the ones in/around Afghanistan. It sucks overall.
Frazzled: The US openly denies the Palestinians the rights to join the ICC, as well as their bids to become a recognised nation. Normally the only 2 countries to do so are the US and Israel. So please don't claim that this is some general attack on America. This is a genuine and legitimate citisism of American foreign policy.
The argument is that its using the UN to get Palestinian concerns addressed but none of the Israelis, so your argument is, as the British say, bullocks.
Oh wait I need to say it louder
BULLOCKS!
Ah I feel better.
No. The argument is that Israel and the US use their political leverage to deny Palestine access to the global community, and recognition as a state. In this way they are able to prevent the Palestinians from having a voice, and also any legal retribution over their criminal actions.
In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.
Vietnam was never really two countries. Following the defeat of the french it was temporarily split in half until an election could take place in 1956 to elect a unified vietnamese government. Ngo Diem took control of the south and those elections never took place.
They have a voice now and 38,572 UN resolutions against Israel. It also ignores the gazillions the US and UN give to Palestinaian agencies. After all, where do you think the PLO's gets its budget?
Saying that this is the US's fault is equivalent to saying its the UK's fault for bolloxing it up in the first place.
Here's a hint, its the fault of the guys, you know, there.
If you want to see discrimination against non Jews in Israel, look at the Christian community of Bethlehem, and how their lives have been made more and more difficult to the point where Bethlehem's Christian population has declined dramatically in the last few years and it's economy has tanked.
In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.
Vietnam was never two official countries. Following the defeat of the french it was temporarily split into two until an election could take place in 1956 to elect a unified vietnamese government. Ngo Diem took control of the south and those elections never took place.
Israel was never two countries either, until it was conquered.
Its all a point of view.
How about Tibet? Where are the UN fact finding missions?
Where's the UN on that little joy called ISIS, on the RUssian invasion of Ossetia?
Leave the UN out of it. Its legalistic nonsense thats irrelevant as they are toothless.
dogma wrote: That's false. You are only under the force of the laws requiring mandatory service once you have exercised the right of return granted by the Law of Return, thereby becoming an Israeli citizen. You are not an Israeli citizen simply because you are a Jew.
I never claimed that, I simply stated that due their law, a Jew can be granted citizenship, which the United States recognizes, and once you do so, you are compelled to be conscripted.
The maintenance of a dual citizenship, including military service, which could easily be argued to go against the interests of the US.
And yet, thousands of American citizens do just that every year and the State Department has absolutely no problem with it.
Individual has to renounce their Citizenship in front of Consulate officer and must be current on his/her taxes five years past
Most of the time. Technically you can't take an oath under the authority of a foreign government and remain a US citizen which, as I understand, is required of people who serve in the IDF.
That's about the only way to give up your citizenship as the Supreme Court and various procedural practices the State Department has adopted make it pretty hard to involuntary lose your citizenship outside of engaging in hostilities with the United States.
Like I've said, Israel is a special case because of the way the Law of Return works and because their military service is not voluntary. The United States understands that, and through USC 1841, makes it possible for Americans to do just that.
dogma wrote: Yes, but I also know I care more about the US than I do about Israel and that I don't like the fact that the US essentially gives a free pass US citizens who want to go fight with the IDF.
There is nothing wrong with caring about anything more than anything else and you are in no position to dictate that to anyone.
You may not like the fact American Jews can join the IDF, but that doesn't matter, it's perfectly legal under US law and it isn't going to change.
Da Boss wrote: If you want to see discrimination against non Jews in Israel, look at the Christian community of Bethlehem, and how their lives have been made more and more difficult to the point where Bethlehem's Christian population has declined dramatically in the last few years and it's economy has tanked.
I know right. If only Christians could get to the safety of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. Oh wait.
So it was conquered, but Palestinians that try to "conquer it back" by fighting back are terrorists? How does that work? If might makes right for one side, then the other should be totally okay to use force to achieve it's goals right?
Or does it depend on which side you support?
Fraz: I'm just pointing out that this idea that everything is rosy for non-Jews in Israel is not entirely true.
Da Boss wrote: So it was conquered, but Palestinians that try to "conquer it back" by fighting back are terrorists? How does that work? If might makes right for one side, then the other should be totally okay to use force to achieve it's goals right?
Or does it depend on which side you support?
It means the argument is essentially irrelevant.
Again, everyone in that region has a grievance and excuse to kill each other if they want to.
Or they can act like adults and just play in separate sandboxes.
They seem to like option A a lot more than option B.
In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.
Technically, this was the re-unification of what had, only two decades prior, been one single country. Yeah, it was violent. No, it wasn't pretty. But overall, if the West had been able to accept that Ho Chi Minh legitimately defeated the French, and not try to call do-over, there would've been no need for the invasion.
Agreed. Ho Chi Minh made diplomatic approaches to Washington, circa 1962. Kennedy didn't see anything in it for him. The reunification could have happened peacably and with a pro-West Hanoi.
Da Boss wrote: Seriously, just because some land was administrated by the British Empire, it did not make the private property rights of people living on the land obsolete. Whatever about their "moral" right to the land, they had no real legal right to it. It wasn't owned by the crown or something. People owned properties, businesses and agricultural land in that region.
The British mandate also respected those land ownership claims, both Jewish and Arab.
Orlanth wrote:
Agreed. Ho Chi Minh made diplomatic approaches to Washington, circa 1962. Kennedy didn't see anything in it for him. The reunification could have happened peacably and with a pro-West Hanoi.
.
Kennedy ran on outrightwining Nixon. He wasn't going to be seen giving into Da Commies. Advisors in the region were arguing stay the out of it.
(interestingly, Kennedy would be considering a raving right winger by both of today's parties).
Wonder how it would have turned out if Egyptian armored divisions had not moved out from under air cover. Wasn't Jordan though talked into assisting in a attack that had "NO" stamped all over it to draw off Israeli forces from other fronts.
The number of people who have a strong opinion on this subject vastly outweigh the number of people who know anything about it.
I say we build a giant wall around the Middle-East, and then deposit all people with a strong opinion one way or another in the middle. Last one standing is right, battle royale style. All are welcome, nationalities irrelevant. To the victor go the spoils!
Ketara wrote: The number of people who have a strong opinion on this subject vastly outweigh the number of people who know anything about it.
I say we build a giant wall around the Middle-East, and then deposit all people with a strong opinion one way or another in the middle. Last one standing is right, battle royale style. All are welcome, nationalities irrelevant. To the victor go the spoils!
I pass. Been there. Still have all the dirt from there still on my boot tags.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder how it would have turned out if Egyptian armored divisions had not moved out from under air cover. Wasn't Jordan though talked into assisting in a attack that had "NO" stamped all over it to draw off Israeli forces from other fronts.
Egypt moved out because their allies were being beaten.
Ketara wrote: The number of people who have a strong opinion on this subject vastly outweigh the number of people who know anything about it.
I say we build a giant wall around the Middle-East, and then deposit all people with a strong opinion one way or another in the middle. Last one standing is right, battle royale style. All are welcome, nationalities irrelevant. To the victor go the spoils!
I pass. Been there. Still have all the dirt from there still on my boot tags.
Edit
I will just claim the dirt on those tags ONLY
It seems you have already attempted to abscond with some of the spoils. Into the arena with you!
Ketara wrote: The number of people who have a strong opinion on this subject vastly outweigh the number of people who know anything about it.
I say we build a giant wall around the Middle-East, and then deposit all people with a strong opinion one way or another in the middle. Last one standing is right, battle royale style. All are welcome, nationalities irrelevant. To the victor go the spoils!
I pass. Been there. Still have all the dirt from there still on my boot tags.
Edit
I will just claim the dirt on those tags ONLY
It seems you have already attempted to abscond with some of the spoils. Into the arena with you!
Woops just remember. I jumped in the rain puddles when I stopped taking my meds for a couple of days.....wait....I was on my meds but drank quite a bit of Devil Cut....
What I don't understand...is why given everything that is going on in the worls at any given time, so many people are obsessed with a region that is about the size of new jersey with a smaller population.
Supertony51 wrote: What I don't understand...is why given everything that is going on in the worls at any given time, so many people are obsessed with a region that is about the size of new jersey with a smaller population.
Gimme a fething break.
Feel free to start a thread about sheep farming in New Zealand, or amazing greek food recipes.
Supertony51 wrote: What I don't understand...is why given everything that is going on in the worls at any given time, so many people are obsessed with a region that is about the size of new jersey with a smaller population.
Gimme a fething break.
Feel free to start a thread about sheep farming in New Zealand, or amazing greek food recipes.
LOL
I love Kitkat.
Anyway, just saying, with all the crazyness in the world, so many people are obsessed with the whole Israel/Palestine issue......it seems so...trivial.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What needs to happen for the Israelis and Palestinians to come to the table and broker peace?
Universal atheism?
This isn't really so much over religion as it is a family quarrel going back thousands of years.
The Palestinians aren't the descendants of the original tribes of the Levant. Their Arab, they migrated north. The original people of the land were Semitic, just like the Jews. Obviously, todays Jewish aren't pure descendants either, but the Palestinians don't have that ancient claim.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What needs to happen for the Israelis and Palestinians to come to the table and broker peace?
Universal atheism?
This isn't really so much over religion as it is a family quarrel going back thousands of years.
The Palestinians aren't the descendants of the original tribes of the Levant. Their Arab, they migrated north. The original people of the land were Semitic, just like the Jews. Obviously, todays Jewish aren't pure descendants either, but the Palestinians don't have that ancient claim.
I think it could be stated that since Palestinians are Arab, it is a family argument.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder how it would have turned out if Egyptian armored divisions had not moved out from under air cover. Wasn't Jordan though talked into assisting in a attack that had "NO" stamped all over it to draw off Israeli forces from other fronts.
Are you talking about October 1973?
The short answer would be that the Camp David peace process might never have happened.
Arabs are proud people as a rule, and Israel has rubbed their noses in it. Egypt however regained its honour in 1973, first by their commando and combat engineer operations along the Bar Lev line, and secondly because when the tanks rolled into the Sinai they met with initial success, ambushing israeli tanks in column and inflicting bloody defeats on them.
They lost in the end, but it was no longer a pushover, and they won some battles.
After that they could afford peace, and Carter came up with the goods.
in a similar note during a World Cup qualifier match of US vs Iran, the US State Department made open comments asking whether they actually wanted to win this match. The argument being that is Iran inflicts a defeat on the football pitch is deflates the need to beat the US elsewhere.
Would that mitigate underlying political disagreements over land, and other issues?
No, but ending all the "My god's better than your god and he gave me this land!" crap would get them a step closer to a peaceful resolution.
It is hard to disagree with this, even from a religious perspective.
However also remember the groups are also culturally, and racially opposed.
Global atheism would however cut away a lot of the support network for extremists from both sides.
Big trouble is, what horrors would global atheism bring of itself. Global atheism has been tried, under revolutionary communism.
@Orlanth
That had more to do with authoritarianism than it did with atheism. An authoritarian dictator cannot command the absolute loyalty and obedience of his subjects if their loyalty, hearts and minds belong elsewhere I.e. God, with codes of ethics and morality that undermine what the dictator wants to achieve.
And with the extreme Personality Cults that inevitably spring up in these countries, an absolute dictator like Stalin, or Mao, or Kim Jong Un does not seek to stamp out the concept of God, and religion. He seeks to supplant God, creating a Peronality Cult and indeed, a literal religion if I understand North Korea correctly, with himself as the head of State, head of Government, and sole deity.
So those atrocities you refer to were not done out of some system or code of atheist beliefs (which is a hilarious oxymoron - to be an atheist is to lack religious belief), but for the purposes of controlling society and imposing an authoritarian rule.
The Palestinians aren't the descendants of the original tribes of the Levant. Their Arab, they migrated north. The original people of the land were Semitic, just like the Jews. Obviously, todays Jewish aren't pure descendants either, but the Palestinians don't have that ancient claim.
Lots of Arabs are Semitic too as whether or not you are Semitic is defined by the language you speak, and your antecedents have historically spoken, and Arabic is a Semitic language. In fact I can assure there are more Arab Semites than Jewish ones.
And, lets be honest, while the claim does matter, it shouldn't. At its core the issue is one of imperialism and Israel taking homes from people both recently and historically.
In the US the word "Congress", even when capitalized, can refer to both the House and the collective body. I should have been more precise, but I think the focus of my question was rather obvious regardless.
dogma wrote: In the US the word "Congress", even when capitalized, can refer to both the House and the collective body.
Sure, but you were attempting to correct Jihadin after he mistakenly said that Paul Ryan was introducing a bill to the Senate when instead he would be introducing it to the House, of which he is a member. So in the context you were using it that wouldn't necessarily be correct.
No worries though.
I should have been more precise, but I think the focus of my question was rather obvious regardless.
Just holding you to the same standard you hold everyone else. Nothing wrong with being fair!
If you Google Congress the first option is the House of Representatives, the second is a Wiki page about the entire legislative (lol) body comprised of both the House and Senate.
Are they collecting tax money form the Palestinians or just refusing to release budget funds given by them to the PLO? Thats a question. ?
EDIT: found it:
The Israeli government’s decision to freeze the taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestinians from custom and excise duties — funds the Palestinian Authority relies on to pay salaries and provide public services — appears likely to cause a further flare-up.
Palestinians are getting diplomatic, so freeze their funding, get rthem riled and angry.
Rockets can be dealt with, just hit back and blame everything on the Palestinians.
Diplomacy is harder to handle as Israel is on shaky moral ground, the best place for Israel to make diplomacy fail is at the source, by doing things that keep the Palestinians too angry and divided to progress. Cutting off tax funding is just one of many tools.
gameaa wrote: So it is that If someone takes a potshot at Israelis the IDF happily takes out a few houses to make sure it does happen again
Ammended for truth.
Peaceful Palestinians are far more dangerous, also with the wall and bulldozings Israel is fairly safe. it could be safer with a different strategy, but that wont solve the problem.
Ketara wrote: A scary amount of the world is still anti-semitic
I spoke with my grandfather on this subject one time, he said in his day (Born in 1920's and served in WWII in a Navy CB unit) anti-semitic ideas were the norm, in fact it was his opinion (further backed up by recent historical discoveries) that the reason the US govt didn't officially admit to the public that Germany was killing Jews because it would push the US to join with the Axis powers as most Americans would want to ship US Jews to Germany to have them ausrottunginated.
It was the films of the concentration and death camps that turned the tide for most of the first world. However many people, myself included, feel that Israel has overplayed their hand where it comes to the guilt the first world feels for allowing the slaughter of the Jews. The tide is turning, after all you can only play the victim card for so long before people get tired. The US still accepts the victim-hood status for some reason. I think it's because we like to root for an underdog and the Israel lobby has done a great job of making them seem like the underdog in the region. Probably why we got stupid over the Kurds and trashed our relationship with Turkey over them.
Ketara wrote: That's not to say casualty figures are completely bogus, but merely to illustrate an example as to where the UN gives certain parties an easy ride, and others not so much. Unfortunately, being the United Nations does not equate to being neutral.
No one is neutral. Everyone has biases, most people wont admit to them. However I will say, if everyone says you stink perhaps a bath is in order.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Supertony51 wrote: What I don't understand...is why given everything that is going on in the worls at any given time, so many people are obsessed with a region that is about the size of new jersey with a smaller population.
Gimme a fething break.
Oil. That's about the size of it. If the Middle East didn't set on top of bajillions of gallons of the stuff we wouldn't give a rat's red pattotie about them and they wouldn't have the money to cause any trouble. They'd just sit about living their 16th century lives and we wouldn't even know the names of their countries.
I argue the solution is an oil rig that can drill through radioactive glass and comfortable anti rad suits for oil workers is the solution to the problem.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: some system or code of atheist beliefs (which is a hilarious oxymoron - to be an atheist is to lack religious belief)
One can have a code/system/belief without it being religious.
Some would argue it's easier to have a coherent system of morality and ethics without having a religion to muck it all up with supernatural nonsense and men in funny hats telling you what to do.
Like I said, oil rigs that can get through three feet of radioactive glass and radiation suits for oil workers that don't kill them from heat prostration.
Either that or develop the technology to get us to Mars and colonize it effectively. Then those of us in the 21st century can leave this planet for those trapped in the 16th century.
I think the first is far more likely given the current economic and scientific climate in the world. After all, we already have the nukes.
Medium of Death wrote: Part of me thinks it would be best just to expatriate Palestinians into the surrounding countries.
I don't think there's ever going to be a good solution to this problem and I think it takes up far too much international time.
They don't want them.
Remember the West Bank was Jordan. Jordan doesn't want it back. Gaza was Egypt. They DEFINITELY don't want it back.
The other countries in the Gulf refuse to let the immigrate. They'll hire them as temporary (CHEAP) labor pool but thats it. They're like the Phillipines of the ME.
Thats the big problem, even if they formed a new nation, they'd still go almost automatically to "failed state" level.
Medium of Death wrote: Part of me thinks it would be best just to expatriate Palestinians into the surrounding countries.
I don't think there's ever going to be a good solution to this problem and I think it takes up far too much international time.
They don't want them.
Remember the West Bank was Jordan. Jordan doesn't want it back.
Gaza was Egypt. They DEFINITELY don't want it back.
The other countries in the Gulf refuse to let the immigrate. They'll hire them as temporary (CHEAP) labor pool but thats it. They're like the Phillipines of the ME.
Thats the big problem, even if they formed a new nation, they'd still go almost automatically to "failed state" level.
It was the films of the concentration and death camps that turned the tide for most of the first world. However many people, myself included, feel that Israel has overplayed their hand where it comes to the guilt the first world feels for allowing the slaughter of the Jews. The tide is turning, after all you can only play the victim card for so long before people get tired. The US still accepts the victim-hood status for some reason. I think it's because we like to root for an underdog and the Israel lobby has done a great job of making them seem like the underdog in the region.
I think you're making the mistake of seeing this with a bit of a contemporary perspective, which doesn't acknowledge the psychologies involved.
For the longest time, Israel was the underdog in the region. They had to fight tooth and nail to prevent themselves being swarmed under for the following thirty years after they came into existence, and had genuine worries about further invasions/hostilities for the next twenty. Their security/domination of the region is a relatively recent thing. Living under that kind of pressure impacts psychologically on a culture to an amazing degree, and just because the children of today live in relative peace of mind where security is concerned, their parents (and the people who run the country) do not.
What's more, the Israeli Government is made up of Jews, and the Jews have lived through thousands of years of discrimination and persecution long before Hitler or Israel came around. That kind of cultural conditioning has impacted upon the Israeli psychology, and solidified even further the paranoid mindset provided by the 1950-1990 period. These 'Nobody likes us, we don't care', & 'Take care of your own and let the world hang' mentalities have become so ingrained that just pointing to the Israelis and saying, 'They need to drop the victim complex' simply doesn't take into account the level and complexity of cultural and historical conditioning at play here.
On 19 June 1967, the Israeli cabinet voted to return the Golan to Syria in exchange for a peace agreement. Such overtures were dismissed by the Arab world with the Khartoum Resolution on September 1, 1967.[12][13] In the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel agreed to return about 5% of the territory to Syrian civilian control. This part was incorporated into a demilitarised zone that runs along the ceasefire line and extends eastward. This strip is under the military control of UN peace keeping forces.
I knew Israel took Golan Heights from Syria. Its like a bread basket region I think. I also l found out just now why Syria didn't take it back so I clicked a link on the Resolution mention above
The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967 was issued at the conclusion of 1967 Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War, in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The summit lasted from August 29 to September 1 and was attended by eight Arab heads of state: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, and Sudan.[1] The resolution called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War, and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the "Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..."[2]
I highly doubt now though that Israel will return that portion of land back in this time frame and in the future
Here's a question as you're closer to the source. What keeps Israel from deconstructing the Wailing Wall and reconstructing it somewhere else, say, south of Fredricksburg?
Wish I knew - I'm not a religious scholar so I don't really know. My guess is, that it'd be "really really hard."
Here's a question as you're closer to the source. What keeps Israel from deconstructing the Wailing Wall and reconstructing it somewhere else, say, south of Fredricksburg?
Wish I knew - I'm not a religious scholar so I don't really know. My guess is, that it'd be "really really hard."
Medium of Death wrote: Part of me thinks it would be best just to expatriate Palestinians into the surrounding countries.
I don't think there's ever going to be a good solution to this problem and I think it takes up far too much international time.
They don't want them.
Remember the West Bank was Jordan. Jordan doesn't want it back.
Gaza was Egypt. They DEFINITELY don't want it back.
The other countries in the Gulf refuse to let the immigrate. They'll hire them as temporary (CHEAP) labor pool but thats it. They're like the Phillipines of the ME.
Thats the big problem, even if they formed a new nation, they'd still go almost automatically to "failed state" level.
Unfortunately the only real solution is for the Egyptians to manage Gaza and the Jordanians to manage the West Bank. That way a real nation with something to lose is held accountable for these terrorists' actions.
The Egyptians don't want a war and neither do the Jordanians. They will keep the Palestinians in check. Their methods would be far more brutal than those that Israel ever used, and the international community would say absolutely nothing since they only care about Arabs being killed when Jews are doing it. And at the end of the day, there'd be peace.
Here's a question as you're closer to the source. What keeps Israel from deconstructing the Wailing Wall and reconstructing it somewhere else, say, south of Fredricksburg?
Wish I knew - I'm not a religious scholar so I don't really know. My guess is, that it'd be "really really hard."
Uh... if they deconstructed the wall... what happens to the Mosque above? I thought it wasn't possible...
Here's a question as you're closer to the source. What keeps Israel from deconstructing the Wailing Wall and reconstructing it somewhere else, say, south of Fredricksburg?
Wish I knew - I'm not a religious scholar so I don't really know. My guess is, that it'd be "really really hard."
What's behind the Wall....
Yeah that's a good point as well...as a nation Israel is mostly high tech startups, military companies...things that can be moved. Their livelihood is mainly intellectual property. On the other hand, there is a deeply religious minority with a disproportionate amount of sway that would never OK that.
Why people want to move the Israelis is beyond me anyway - it's far too late for that. Like EVERY nation, they fought for (and earned) every inch of land that is now the state of Israel. Nobody who seriously proposes relocating Israelis is worth taking seriously.
Here's a question as you're closer to the source. What keeps Israel from deconstructing the Wailing Wall and reconstructing it somewhere else, say, south of Fredricksburg?
Wish I knew - I'm not a religious scholar so I don't really know. My guess is, that it'd be "really really hard."
What's behind the Wall....
Yeah that's a good point as well...as a nation Israel is mostly high tech startups, military companies...things that can be moved. Their livelihood is mainly intellectual property. On the other hand, there is a deeply religious minority with a disproportionate amount of sway that would never OK that.
Why people want to move the Israelis is beyond me anyway - it's far too late for that. Like EVERY nation, they fought for (and earned) every inch of land that is now the state of Israel. Nobody who seriously proposes relocating Israelis is worth taking seriously.
I'm not worth taking seriously? Thanks!
If I were Israeli, I'd look long about getting to the US or Canada. I don't see the fighting ending there, and who knows if Iran ever decides just make everything go boom. The problem with a theocracy with The Bomb is they might use it.
I'm not worth taking seriously? Thanks!
If I were Israeli, I'd look long about getting to the US or Canada. I don't see the fighting ending there, and who knows if Iran ever decides just make everything go boom. The problem with a theocracy with The Bomb is they might use it.
I wouldn't make the assumption that you'd actually propose, with a straight face, evicting millions of people who shed blood and worked for the land on which they built their homes.
Don't get me wrong - I have zero interest in living in Israel, but they did build a first-world country out of absolutely nothing. Who am I to tell them to move? As for Iran, I really don't think they're going to use the bomb. Ahmadinejad talks a big game but I think the buck stops there...the actual leaders of that country aren't stupid. Israel likely has the full nuclear triad, and would glass Iran and the entire Islamic world if it came down to it.
I'm not worth taking seriously? Thanks!
If I were Israeli, I'd look long about getting to the US or Canada. I don't see the fighting ending there, and who knows if Iran ever decides just make everything go boom. The problem with a theocracy with The Bomb is they might use it.
I wouldn't make the assumption that you'd actually propose, with a straight face, evicting millions of people who shed blood and worked for the land on which they built their homes.
Don't get me wrong - I have zero interest in living in Israel, but they did build a first-world country out of absolutely nothing. Who am I to tell them to move? As for Iran, I really don't think they're going to use the bomb. Ahmadinejad talks a big game but I think the buck stops there...the actual leaders of that country aren't stupid. Israel likely has the full nuclear triad, and would glass Iran and the entire Islamic world if it came down to it.
Ahmadinejad retired. Theres a new lunatic in charge of the asylum.
I'm not worth taking seriously? Thanks!
If I were Israeli, I'd look long about getting to the US or Canada. I don't see the fighting ending there, and who knows if Iran ever decides just make everything go boom. The problem with a theocracy with The Bomb is they might use it.
I wouldn't make the assumption that you'd actually propose, with a straight face, evicting millions of people who shed blood and worked for the land on which they built their homes.
Don't get me wrong - I have zero interest in living in Israel, but they did build a first-world country out of absolutely nothing. Who am I to tell them to move? As for Iran, I really don't think they're going to use the bomb. Ahmadinejad talks a big game but I think the buck stops there...the actual leaders of that country aren't stupid. Israel likely has the full nuclear triad, and would glass Iran and the entire Islamic world if it came down to it.
Evict? Heck no.
Voluntarily get the heck out of there as an entire nation? You betcha. Population is not that big. Run for the Hills baby, the Texas Hill Country to be more precise. We havt Tex Mex. Come on you know you want it.
Ketara wrote: pointing to the Israelis and saying, 'They need to drop the victim complex' simply doesn't take into account the level and complexity of cultural and historical conditioning at play here.
I understand why they don't want to do it. I'm just saying why the world seems to be getting sick and tired of the attitude. We mock the Muslims for living in the 16th century, it seems the Israelis are living in the 16th century BC with their mentality. Maybe they need to join the rest of us in the 21st century and get over themselves. Not saying they will want to, heck we have our own problems with the political dinosaurs from the boomer generation holding us back but at least they are only holding onto the 50's and 60's of the last century not the last 5,000 years...
I get that the Jews have had a rough road over the last 5,000 years, some of it for the silliest of reasons (religion) but a lot of it they brought on themselves (picking a fight with Rome comes to mind). I don't think they will get over it and move on but they need to if they want to turn the tide of public opinion in the 1st world. By and large we've (1st world) all overcame our histories, the US and Britain get along even though we had to fight a couple of bloody wars in the last couple hundred years. Even Germany and France are playing nice and their history of bloodshed is less than 100 years old. The time has come for Israel to do the same.
You can learn from history, but you can't live in your history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If they irradiate the land first and made it a barren inhospitable wasteland, then I could support that.
I think at some point it's going to come down to that no matter what we do.
Americans look at the Middle East and wonder why the Muslims can't just drop the whole Koran thing and join the 21st century like the rest of us. They wonder why the Muslims wallow in the 16th century following the laws set forth in the 8th century by a delusional Arab who thought Allah was talking to him. But a majority of Americans and almost every American politician to one degree follows a set of rules from around 5,000 BC which were somewhat updated between the 4th and 9th century AD and depending on their level of devotion endeavors to make the rest of the nation follow some or all of them as well. So the pot is calling the kettle black. Superstition is superstition no matter what robes and hats the charlatans who push it wear. They can no more drop their superstitions and move on than anyone else. While their particular flavor of charlatans pushing their superstitions say that their holy book says they are the chosen people and they must convert or kill everyone else is that significantly different than the Israeli charlatans who claim their followers are the chosen people? Is it different than the American charlatans of various flavors who try through all manner of sneaky means to increase the size of their flocks?
What is my point? I had one laying around here somewhere....
Oh yes! The point of all this is to say no one is going to significantly change their attitudes in the next 50 years. The hatred between Jews and Muslims can only get worse and with the prevalence of nukes on the world and the region someone is going to wind up tossing one at some point and everything will hit the fan.
Like I've said before, the solution lies in either the technology to colonize the stars and leave this planet to those obsessed with their silly superstitions to fight over the scraps and determine who are the "chosen" people or the technology to drill for oil in a radioactive wasteland.
I'd prefer #1 but I think we will wind up neck deep in #2....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Voluntarily get the heck out of there as an entire nation? You betcha. Population is not that big. Run for the Hills baby
But their particular set of superstitions and holy books tell them it is the land given to them by their imaginary friend. They can't leave without abandoning their entire set of superstitious beliefs. That's not going to happen. Humans cling to their superstitions.
Frazzled wrote: the Texas Hill Country to be more precise. We have Tex Mex. Come on you know you want it.
I thought Texans were trying to keep immigrants out...
I understand where you're coming from. I don't feel honestly like Israel is living in the past though. I feel like they have learned from their past. They've learned that slinking away doesn't solve the problem. In fact, it leads to eventual extinction of their culture. You can say the Jews have a persocution complex but it's because historically (literally for millenia(sp?)) they were persocuted. The world really is out to get them
I don't agree with everything Israel does. I tend to land on their side on many issues but there isn't a right answer to the problem unfortunately. At least not one that is going to be considered and approved by both sides. Both have done bad things and both don't want to give up what they feel they are entitled to/have worked for.
Additionally while you can say people follow "ancient" superstitions the values and interpretations of those superstitions isn't ancient. It's evolving. Muslims are in the same phase that Jews and Christians went through. It's just unfortunate they are going thru the phase when nukes are around.
You can't easily point at one incident like that and say "Okay, from now on THAT side is in the wrong entirely!"
out of it.
