Irontruth |
I empathize with you Lord Snow. Unfortunately, I don't think it does make you safer. The retaliations only add fuel to the fire, especially for those who are already violent and looking for excuses.
If I think I'm justified in hitting you, and prone to do it, I will.
Then you think you're justified hitting me, so you do.
Now, since I was justified the first time (in my mind), I have to retaliate again.
And so it goes, on and on. Peace will only be possible when one side is either incapable of using violence, or decides to stop using it.
Mark Sweetman |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Snow - I find that heart-wrenchingly sad, I really do. That sadness has nothing to do with any safety concerns or protection, but with the fact that you think that summary assassinations / executions outside of the law are actually something that you appreciate in a positive way.
Ripping from wikiipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.
Or paraphrasing: Assassinating those that have harmed you with no regard for the law or due process, and expecting that your opponent will be cowed sufficiently to not raise a hand against you again.
Answering terrorism with terrorism is not the way to progress or peace.
Mark Sweetman |
Besides, it's kinda stuipd to think that Israel has any reason to just randomly attack locations in Gaza... If Israel would have wanted it, Gaza could be wiped out in a manner of hours (take the bombings the air force performed on Beyrot during the 2009 war with HizbAllah for example, those air strikes can be devestating). Not only does the IDF not do anything like that, Israel provides food and electricity and water and medicine to Gaza (even now, during the war). If Israel had any wish to harm those there, sending men with guns to shoot at people would be stuipd, when it can just stop feeding the people there.
UN compound shelled in Cast Lead
Strike against Gaza city media buildingI'm willing to accept that these were accidents, but that disputes the purported accuracy and due care that you state Israel takes when picking targets.
Article on what Israel allows through the blockade - a quote "I visited a food station where hundreds of displaced persons waited to collect their meager staples of rice, sugar, lentils and cooking oil. While this program may save people from starvation, it is a diet that does not prevent the highest level of anemia in the region, with alarming rates of childhood stunting due to inadequate nutrition."
On numerous occasions Israel has forcibly turned away humanitarian aid bound for Gaza.
I know that Israel proabably gives some sort of aid... but it's very difficult to track down actual figures and numbers on the web. I would suspect that it is not at the top of the list though. Most of the aid it lets through I would suspect it did not pay for itself.
-----
And just to give some balance of the story:
Stats on rocket attacks from Gaza - have killed 10 Israeli civilians from 2009-12
Article on those under rocket fire
Fatalities from acts of terror against Israel
Stats on aid Israel allows into Gaza
Comrade Anklebiter |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The idea of a country based on ethnicity is not racial discrimination, it is actually rather common in this world. On the grand scale of things the French are a people and the British are a people, and they don't want to share the same country, for example. You can see how the super liberal Europe is reacting to the Muslim refugees for proof that people seek to live with their own.
Yes, we call those people racists.
Fabius Maximus |
1) The idea of a country based on ethnicity is not racial discrimination, it is actually rather common in this world. On the grand scale of things the French are a people and the British are a people, and they don't want to share the same country, for example.
Sorry that I have to intersect here, but the above is simply not true. As opposed to German nationalism, for example, the French is not ethnic in nature, but political. It's based on political participation. As long as you subscribe to the foundations of the French state (including it's strong secularism), you're considered part of the French people by most French. That's not to say that there is no racism in France (as is evident by the existence of the Front National, and the utilization of secularism to harass religious people by the conservative parties).
I'm also pretty sure that the majority of Brits do not consider themselves as part of a British ethnicity, which, considering the composition of the UK, simply doesn't exist.
BigNorseWolf |
1) The idea of a country based on ethnicity is not racial discrimination, it is actually rather common in this world. On the grand scale of things the French are a people and the British are a people, and they don't want to share the same country, for example.
And the genetic and racial differences between them are nil.
You can see how the super liberal Europe is reacting to the Muslim refugees for proof that people seek to live with their own.
Which is 1) cultural and economical, not genetic.2)
The problem Israel had in that department is, as others point out, that unlike in France, the Jewish majority is not overwhelming here. If Israel would have been 90% Jews or more, the issue of ethnicity would barely ever be relevant - again, that's how things go in many countries in the world. U.S is different, yes, it's not an ethnic country. That's due to a unique history.
Unique history of 1) having such a technological and immunological advantage over the natives that the extermination of the locals was neigh total.
2)Which seperates israel and america from 99% of other countries on the planet, they're based on people immigrating into an area rather than the people whose ancestors have been continuously there since time immemorial.
2) Many a people has suffered through history... but the Jewish people is the most ancient.
All humans have been around for the same length of time, and have suffered for all of it. Ya'll just wrote it down first.
I may not be aware of something here, but as far as I know no other people can trace it's history as a cohesive group so far back as Jews do. That means that in an ever shifting world there was always that group of strange people, living in their secluded communities, refusing to speak the local language or mingle with them in any way (even today,
Which is a lot of what leads to the public relations problems. When you conquer,get conquered, or immigrate into an area taking up the local language and culture smooths the transition over and after a generation or 3 makes it seem like there's no problem. Its why locally being jewish is a non issue, but people grumble a lot about the hassidum.
I am given some grief around here because my girlfriend is not Jewish). Sure at some times in history the Jewish people wasn't all that snobbish, but that didn't help any more because the idea of the Jew as the intimidating stranger is as rooted in the western world as any idea could be, I think.
Jews, gypsies, woods women... standing outside of normal society has always been a good way to be a target for angry mobs. Not excusing it, just explaining it. It has less to do with simply being jewish and more to do with the lengths gone to to remain seperate.
Of course I'm afraid. This is not dogma, this is not victimizing myself, it's just a fact - without a Jewish Israel, I would fear for my safety.
Your fear is irrational. Do you honestly think you're safer in Israel than in New Jersey? Or even Alabama? .. even when Iran hasn't had a two for one sale on rockets?
Even if it were rational, it doesn't give you a right to do unto others before they do unto you. You can't make the argument that you have a right to a safe, secure, and functioning homeland of your own while denying it to the palastinians. What makes you, as an individual, different than the 16 year old kid sitting in the west bank?
Lord Snow |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ripping from wikiipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.
I think you forgot this part of the definiton :"...and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).".
Don't get silly on me, spinning words can only take you so far. Terrorism is a crime commited against a civilian population, not against killers and soldiers. According to the absurdly broad definiton you used for the word, even *Batman* is a terrorist.
I apperciate in a positive way that people who killed other people just out of misguided hatred (and who could very easily target me next)are taught to fear my country. If you mkae sure anyone who tries a move against you dies, you ensure only those crazy enough to sacrifice themselves to heart you will be brave enough to do so (and nothing can make those kind of people to give up anyway).
Were you happy when Bein Ladden (I think that's how the name is spelled in English :P) got killed? I am opposed to any sort of needless death, it's just that I think in some cases death is not needless, if you want to ensure the bad guys are dead and the good guys get to live.
Icyshadow |
Mark Sweetman wrote:
Ripping from wikiipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.
I think you forgot this part of the definiton :"...and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).".
Don't get silly on me, spinning words can only take you so far. Terrorism is a crime commited against a civilian population, not against killers and soldiers. According to the absurdly broad definiton you used for the word, even *Batman* is a terrorist.
I apperciate in a positive way that people who killed other people just out of misguided hatred (and who could very easily target me next)are taught to fear my country. If you mkae sure anyone who tries a move against you dies, you ensure only those crazy enough to sacrifice themselves to heart you will be brave enough to do so (and nothing can make those kind of people to give up anyway).
Were you happy when Bein Ladden (I think that's how the name is spelled in English :P) got killed? I am opposed to any sort of needless death, it's just that I think in some cases death is not needless, if you want to ensure the bad guys are dead and the good guys get to live.
Some people oppose death penalties of all kinds, even when the person to be killed is a serial killer or rapist.
I don't know who thought that everyone in the world has some bit of good in them. Some just are hopeless cases.
Lord Snow |
Lord Snow wrote:1) The idea of a country based on ethnicity is not racial discrimination, it is actually rather common in this world. On the grand scale of things the French are a people and the British are a people, and they don't want to share the same country, for example. You can see how the super liberal Europe is reacting to the Muslim refugees for proof that people seek to live with their own.Yes, we call those people racists.
It's slightly more complicated than that of course, people in Europe had long hundreds of years to develop a very specific kind of society, and one of the outcomes of that society is very low birth rate. Suddenly their lands are flooded (this process took much less than a decade) with people from a VERY diffrent kind of culture, a culture that in many places dosen't coincide very smoothly with it's European counterpart. Those people come in great numbers and breed fast. Europeans have a right to feel intimidated that their way of life might be coming to an end.
I for one don't think that change and mingling between people is a bad thing, for the most part(I am awere of the kind of hypocracy in saying that right after caliming that Jews need their own country... I just believe that the special circumstances of the Jewish people forces them into having a majority in one country on our globe. Every rule has an exception and I am tempted to think in that case, this exception is Israel), but I can certainly see why people are afraid an anxious when it happens.
Lord Snow |
Lord Snow wrote:Mark Sweetman wrote:
Ripping from wikiipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.
I think you forgot this part of the definiton :"...and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).".
Don't get silly on me, spinning words can only take you so far. Terrorism is a crime commited against a civilian population, not against killers and soldiers. According to the absurdly broad definiton you used for the word, even *Batman* is a terrorist.
I apperciate in a positive way that people who killed other people just out of misguided hatred (and who could very easily target me next)are taught to fear my country. If you mkae sure anyone who tries a move against you dies, you ensure only those crazy enough to sacrifice themselves to heart you will be brave enough to do so (and nothing can make those kind of people to give up anyway).
Were you happy when Bein Ladden (I think that's how the name is spelled in English :P) got killed? I am opposed to any sort of needless death, it's just that I think in some cases death is not needless, if you want to ensure the bad guys are dead and the good guys get to live.
Some people oppose death penalties of all kinds, even when the person to be killed is a serial killer or rapist.
I don't know who thought that everyone in the world has some bit of good in them. Some just are hopeless cases.
Don't get me wrong, I oppose death panelty, because I think it serves nothing more than a desire for revange. However in cases of terrorist forces I think the amount of intimidation you can create by killing them in large numbers is worth the price of having a human being (even a monstrous one) killed. If killing a terrorist MIGHT give another one second thoughts, it's worth it. Those men and women are dangerous and with violent intent, and much worse they form groups and activley recruit more people like them. They have to be treated like a hostile army, not like a criminal.
Mark Sweetman |
Mark Sweetman wrote:I think you forgot this part of the definiton :"...and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).".
Ripping from wikiipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.
I think a very good case could be made that that clause is also fulfilled by Israel's military and political doctrine against Gaza. I'd post examples... but you'd probably ignore them anyway...
And to answer your question - I wasn't 'happy' when Bin Laden was killed (though at least the team was there with orders to capture if possible)... neither was I 'happy' when Gaddafi was set upon by the mob...
I agonized and thought back and forward over a refute and realized that (like Israel) your position in this is intransigent, and seemingly won't be moved regardless of what I say. All I will say is that you originally put the thread title of Facts - but now we are far far far away from fact. As my opinion is colored by being a left-ist leaning humanitarian... so is your opinion colored by your life experiences.
There are two sets of 'losers' in this conflict - the Palestinian people, and the Israeli people. Both are suffering to varying degrees and for varying reasons because of the actions of both of their leaders, as well as extremist groups within their societies (such as terrorists in Gaza, and the Israeli settlers who build where they should not).
I think that the situation in the Middle East is only going to get more and more complicated as time goes on as well. Both Egypt and potentially Syria have had regime change... which could change both the rhetoric and stance towards Israel. A delicate delicate situation to be sure.
Lord Snow |
Big Norse Wolf (awesome name by the way :)),
1) Believe it or not, there are economical and cultural differences between Jews and Arabs - Jews are a collection of people around the world that share more of a common history than a common genetic pool (I think we're one of the only 'races' to have people with a wide range of color to their skin). Arabs were the locals living peaceful lives in their villages before the Zionist movement, British occupation and WW2 mixed it all up for them. Needless to say their culture is very religious (they are either Christians or Muslims, for the most part).
Some people tend to say Jews have something in common just by merit of being Jews - I disagree, "Jew" is not part of how I define myself (sadly it's part of how other people in the world define me, leaving me no choice but to live as a Jew). However Israelis and Arabs not living in Israel have a LOT of cultural differences (Israel was the only legitimate democracy around up until the revolution in Egypt that happened in the last year, for starters). So this is not only about genetics... though sadly many people here ARE racist.
2) I completely agree that Jews were alienating themselves - I consider that to be the reason why the Jewish people is so hated all around the western world. Live as a snob long enough, people are gonna start holding grudges. I consider myself to be a victim of the actions of these bygone generations of Jews - made me infamous even before I was born.
3) I think my fear is rational. Right now I have nothing to fear living in most places around the globe. But take Israel out of the equation... might take some years, but things can return to being real bad. I am talking as someone who heard accounts of others who lived before Israel. There is real reason to fear.
As for the difference between me and the 16 years old living in Gaza is:
a. I'm older than him :P
b. Luck. His grandparents decided to attack mine after the U.N divided Israel in 1948; my grandparents won and in the momentum of the victory also decided to ruthlessly banish his grandparents from their homes (something that wasn't supposed to happen in the original U.N division). Ever since that time, a solution for those poor people was not found, as no one was willing to take care of them and (in no small part due to illegal settlements founded by religious Jewish people) their territory is small and they have no sovereign nation to be a part of.
Sad truth - the actions of our grandparents, combined with the battle lust of Hamas today, means that there's just no way anyone in their right mind will allow Gaza to become an actual nation with excess to an actual army, not while Hamas is busy announcing that their goal is to raze Israel off the map.
So that 16 year old? Born with no luck whatsoever. No solution on the horizon, either.
Lord Snow |
Lord Snow wrote:Mark Sweetman wrote:I think you forgot this part of the definiton :"...and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).".
Ripping from wikiipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.
I think a very good case could be made that that clause is also fulfilled by Israel's military and political doctrine against Gaza. I'd post examples... but you'd probably ignore them anyway...
And to answer your question - I wasn't 'happy' when Bin Laden was killed (though at least the team was there with orders to capture if possible)... neither was I 'happy' when Gaddafi was set upon by the mob...
I agonized and thought back and forward over a refute and realized that (like Israel) your position in this is intransigent, and seemingly won't be moved regardless of what I say. All I will say is that you originally put the thread title of Facts - but now we are far far far away from fact. As my opinion is colored by being a left-ist leaning humanitarian... so is your opinion colored by your life experiences.
There are two sets of 'losers' in this conflict - the Palestinian people, and the Israeli people. Both are suffering to varying degrees and for varying reasons because of the actions of both of their leaders, as well as extremist groups within their societies (such as terrorists in Gaza, and the Israeli settlers who build where they should not).
I think that the situation in the Middle East is only going to get more and more complicated as time goes on as well. Both Egypt and potentially Syria have had regime change... which could change both the rhetoric and stance towards Israel. A delicate delicate situation to be sure.
You are assuming me to be a piggish kind of person, I regret to see. I actually read all of your links when I first encountered them, even commented about one of them.
If you have reason to believe Israel is using a reign of terror over the people of Gaza I am actually curious to hear your case... I am doubtful though because not many terrorists I've heard of posted millions warning brochures in an attempt to keep civilians away from harm... Still, I am curious. You have already demonstrated you know things that I don't about the issue.
About the "definition of terrorism" thing though, will you agree that it is absurd to claim that hunting down terrorists is being a terrorist yourself? would you agree that terror is a weapon against civilians, not against killers? you kind of changed what you originally said from Israel is a terrorist for going after the Munich killers" to "Israel is using terrorist methods in Gaza".
Also, I didn't mean "happy" about Bein Ladden's death... I meant "accepted it as a necessity (I don't think Gaddafis' death was necessary at all, by the way).
Mark Sweetman |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the Israeli warning leaflet
Kind of vague isn't it? - and dropping leaflets is hardly an effective means of delivery? It relies on the leaflet actually getting to it's target, the target realizing it is in the vicinity of Hamas operatives and facilities (which in many cases it may not) and is actually physically capable of moving somewhere safer... but doesn't actually say where somewhere safe is does it?
What if someone was elderly and unable to walk far? or pregnant and delivering in a homebirth? or even just asleep at the time?
Dropping a bunch of vague leaflets just doesn't cut it as an effective measure for preventing harm to civilians.
Hunting down terrorists is a noble pursuit and pursuing them lawfully so that they can be made to answer is an admirable task and I would applaud it.
Hunting down terrorists so that you can execute them without trial, and in some cases while also killing other people... a less noble pursuit.
thejeff |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:It's slightly more complicated than that of course, people in Europe had long hundreds of years to develop a very specific kind of society, and one of the outcomes of that society is very low birth rate. Suddenly their lands are flooded (this process took much less than a decade) with people from a VERY diffrent kind of culture, a culture that in many places dosen't coincide very smoothly with it's European counterpart. Those people come in great numbers and breed fast. Europeans have a right to feel intimidated that their way of life might be coming to an end.Lord Snow wrote:1) The idea of a country based on ethnicity is not racial discrimination, it is actually rather common in this world. On the grand scale of things the French are a people and the British are a people, and they don't want to share the same country, for example. You can see how the super liberal Europe is reacting to the Muslim refugees for proof that people seek to live with their own.Yes, we call those people racists.
Bullshit. "Those people", by which I assume you mean Muslims and/or Arabs are still a fairly small minority in Europe. If they breed fast, that's a reflection of the poverty and lack of education they came from. That will change within a generation or two, assuming they are allowed education and opportunity. It always has. The current intimidation is due to right will demagogues stirring up race hatred for political ends.
I for one don't think that change and mingling between people is a bad thing, for the most part(I am awere of the kind of hypocracy in saying that right after caliming that Jews need their own country... I just believe that the special circumstances of the Jewish people forces them into having a majority in one country on our globe. Every rule has an exception and I am tempted to think in that case, this exception is Israel), but I can certainly see why people are afraid an anxious when it happens.
If you're honest, you'll admit you're biased in this case. That you may well believe the special circumstances of the Jewish people and Israel deserve an exception because you're one of them.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the Israeli warning leaflet
Kind of vague isn't it? - and dropping leaflets is hardly an effective means of delivery? It relies on the leaflet actually getting to it's target, the target realizing it is in the vicinity of Hamas operatives and facilities (which in many cases it may not) and is actually physically capable of moving somewhere safer... but doesn't actually say where somewhere safe is does it?
What if someone was elderly and unable to walk far? or pregnant and delivering in a homebirth? or even just asleep at the time?
Dropping a bunch of vague leaflets just doesn't cut it as an effective measure for preventing harm to civilians.
Hunting down terrorists is a noble pursuit and pursuing them lawfully so that they can be made to answer is an admirable task and I would applaud it.
Hunting down terrorists so that you can execute them without trial, and in some cases while also killing other people... a less noble pursuit.
And considering that Hamas is the government in the Gaza strip: Avoid all government personnel and facilities. Easy to do isn't it. Especially when you may depend on that government for services.
Icyshadow |
If you say that Lord Snow is biased, you should accept that you are also biased and thus not any more right then he is.
Objective statistics have been linked here, and tales have been given from both sides. I really hope you checked them out.
What more do you want, huh? Do you want to throw blame in hopes of someone "admitting" that the jews are in the wrong?
Lord Snow |
This is the Israeli warning leaflet
Kind of vague isn't it? - and dropping leaflets is hardly an effective means of delivery? It relies on the leaflet actually getting to it's target, the target realizing it is in the vicinity of Hamas operatives and facilities (which in many cases it may not) and is actually physically capable of moving somewhere safer... but doesn't actually say where somewhere safe is does it?
What if someone was elderly and unable to walk far? or pregnant and delivering in a homebirth? or even just asleep at the time?
Dropping a bunch of vague leaflets just doesn't cut it as an effective measure for preventing harm to civilians.
Hunting down terrorists is a noble pursuit and pursuing them lawfully so that they can be made to answer is an admirable task and I would applaud it.
Hunting down terrorists so that you can execute them without trial, and in some cases while also killing other people... a less noble pursuit.
The leaflets are only dropped where the IDF is about to attack, or so I am told (someone, I think a military spokesman, explained it on the radio today).
That aside... the very fact that the leaflets are distributed is at least a declaration of intentions - "we don't want to hurt you if we don't have to". You may claim it is a false declaration (maybe it is), but that's hardly relevant to the issue at hand - Is the IDf deploying a strategy that can be defined as one used by terrorists? I think the leaflets should be a powerful indication that is not the case. You have yet to go into details describing what, if any, of the methods used by IDF is a terrorist method. If you do, could you offer an alternative route of action that will cause less death and harm, working on the assumption that certain goals are set for the army to achieve and it has to work with those goals in mind?Mark Sweetman |
On the topic of acts by Israel against civilians:
Deportation of Palestinians
Failure to act against settlers assaulting Palestinian olive farmers
Seperation barrier that isn't constructed where it should be and separates Palestinian farmers from their farmland
Firing Zone 918
Use of military dogs to break up demonstrations
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong, I oppose death panelty, because I think it serves nothing more than a desire for revange. However in cases of terrorist forces I think the amount of intimidation you can create by killing them in large numbers is worth the price of having a human being (even a monstrous one) killed. If killing a terrorist MIGHT give another one second thoughts, it's worth it. Those men and women are dangerous and with violent intent, and much worse they form groups and activley recruit more people like them. They have to be treated like a hostile army, not like a criminal.
Of course, killing that "terrorist", assuming you actually get the right target, and any civilians who might become collateral damage, might also inspire their friends and relatives to take up arms themselves. You can't terrorize your way to safety. Oppression creates resistance.
Icyshadow |
You know, my mom is infuriated right now about what's going on at the moment with Israeli sites being hacked.
She only got more ticked at people here who border on accusing Israel of being just as "evil" and terrorizing as Hamas.
Take note, my mom is a native Finnish person born and raised*, so she's not "biased" like you'd claim me and Lord Snow to be.
* = She's not Jewish either. She's an agnostic, so try wrapping your head around that.
thejeff |
If you say that Lord Snow is biased, you should accept that you are also biased and thus not any more right then he is.
Objective statistics have been linked here, and tales have been given from both sides. I really hope you checked them out.
What more do you want, huh? Do you want to throw blame in hopes of someone "admitting" that the jews are in the wrong?
Is this in response to me?
All I'm saying is that if he's saying "My group is uniquely deserving of special protection", he might want to consider how much of that opinion is due to the actual facts and how much is because he's a member of that group.
I was speaking only to the claim that Jews alone of all ethnic groups need to have a nation for their safety.
What objective stats should I be looking at?
Mark Sweetman |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The leaflets are only dropped where the IDF is about to attack, or so I am told (someone, I think a military spokesman, explained it on the radio today).
That aside... the very fact that the leaflets are distributed is at least a declaration of intentions - "we don't want to hurt you if we don't have to". You may claim it is a false declaration (maybe it is), but that's hardly relevant to the issue at hand - Is the IDf deploying a strategy that can be defined as one used by terrorists? I think the leaflets should be a powerful indication that is not the case. You have yet to go into details describing what, if any, of the methods used by IDF is a terrorist method. If you do, could you offer an alternative route of action that will cause less death and harm, working on the assumption that certain goals are set for the army to achieve and it has to work with those goals in mind?
On the 'terrorism' aspects - there are a few links from B'tselem above that show acts against Palestinian civilians either directly or supported by military doctrine / political will.
I would posit that the leaflet itself doesn't do very much to alleviate harm to civilians... sure it's a nice gesture, but not very effective. So it can't really be held up as a competent means of harm minimization. It's window dressing - an act that makes the IDF look better, but doesn't actually tangibly make any real difference.
As to a measure that would cause less harm... a facetious answer would be to not undertake the airstrike at all. Then the risk of killing a Palestinian civilian is nil. But that isn't a real answer.
Some of the other measures that they do take are reasonable - such as surveillance, the fact that most of their artillery and missiles are alot more accurate - which means they hit where they intend more often, etc.
I don't think there is a universally 'better' way to do it... but by the same token, no-one should be under any delusions that the IDF has eliminated the risk of civilian casualties. Every single airstrike and artillery shot they take - is taken with a risk of civilian casualties (just as every rocket shot from Gaza into Israel carries the same risk).
Lord Snow - my comment above re: terrorism was a bit flippant, I accept that. But similarly I also think that you can't paint the entirety of Hamas with a 'terrorist' logo either.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Big Norse Wolf (awesome name by the way :)),
You know nothing Lord snow! :)
I got betrayed by a god and all i got was this lousy hand...
1) Believe it or not, there are economical and cultural differences between Jews and Arabs
I know. Most of israel is culturally western or russian, despite the similarity in the religions.
Some people tend to say Jews have something in common just by merit of being Jews - I disagree, "Jew" is not part of how I define myself (sadly it's part of how other people in the world define me, leaving me no choice but to live as a Jew).
You have american citizenship. You can get to america any time you want and live as a... well jew or not jew as you choose. If you're not religious I'm not really sure what the difference would be here except you don't get peperoni on your pizza, if that.
However Israelis and Arabs not living in Israel have a LOT of cultural differences (Israel was the only legitimate democracy around up until the revolution in Egypt that happened in the last year, for starters). So this is not only about genetics... though sadly many people here ARE racist.
You're arguing that the palastinians can't be brought into a democracy.. for some reason.
2) I completely agree that Jews were alienating themselves - I consider that to be the reason why the Jewish people is so hated all around the western world. Live as a snob long enough, people are gonna start holding grudges. I consider myself to be a victim of the actions of these bygone generations of Jews - made me infamous even before I was born.
I find this a rather odd contrast to your later statement
His grandparents decided to attack mine after the U.N divided Israel in 1948
Don't you see a little irony there?
3) I think my fear is rational. Right now I have nothing to fear living in most places around the globe. But take Israel out of the equation... might take some years, but things can return to being real bad. I am talking as someone who heard accounts of others who lived before Israel. There is real reason to fear.
Short of a zombie Apocalypse i can't see any possible future where America isn't safer for Jews than Israel.
As for the difference between me and the 16 years old living in Gaza is:
a. I'm older than him :P
b. Luck. His grandparents decided to attack mine after the U.N divided Israel in 1948; my grandparents won and in the momentum...
This is wrong on three accounts.
First of all, you don't hold people to blame for things their ancestors did.
Secondly, you don't know that. For all you know all 4 of his grandparents could easily have simply fled when the fighting started. You are therefore blaming him for things that people he is vaguely related to did. When you hold an entire group responsible for the qualities of some of its members that's discrimination.
Thirdly, when some government half a world away that you don't participate in and didn't elect gives your stuff away to someone else you're pretty justified in fighting it, yes with violence if need be. Fighting against the creation of Israel was not a war crime for the PARTICIPANTS, much less their descendants, much less people vaguely related to their descendants.
Sad truth - the actions of our grandparents, combined with the battle lust of Hamas today, means that there's just no way anyone in their right mind will allow Gaza to become an actual nation with excess to an actual army, not while Hamas is busy announcing that their goal is to raze Israel off the map.
And without an actual army, how would Hamas or any other government stop the Yahoos Iran is arming? Stopping someone with a rocket launcher when all you're issued is a 9mm. isn't a job I'm going to take for less than minimum wage.
Israel has all the cards, and no real benefit from peace as long as it insists on a racial criteria for its future. As long as the conflict continues it has an excuse to keep the palastinians in legal limbo so that they have no say in the Isreali government that controls their lives and no means of defending themselves from Israels encroachment.
thejeff |
How about checking this post, the last links there. It should clear a few things up on the topic.
I speak of jews needing special protection considering the circumstances they've been in through the ages.
Looking at those links: Jews need the State of Israel to be safe because terrorists have been attacking Israel?
And no other persecuted groups need receive similar consideration? Essentially because no other groups have been able to maintain ethic identity without a nation as long as Jews have?
Icyshadow |
Not just because terrorists have been attacking Israel in the last 50 years,
but because it seems like the world has hardly ever been a nice place to live in for jews.
Berik |
The leaflets are only dropped where the IDF is about to attack, or so I am told (someone, I think a military spokesman, explained it on the radio today).
That aside... the very fact that the leaflets are distributed is at least a declaration of intentions - "we don't want to hurt you if we don't have to". You may claim it is a false declaration (maybe it is), but that's hardly relevant to the issue at hand - Is the IDf deploying a strategy that can be defined as one used by terrorists? I think the leaflets should be a powerful indication that is not the case. You have yet to go into details describing what, if any, of the methods used by IDF is a terrorist method. If you do, could you offer an alternative route of action that will cause less death and harm, working on the assumption that certain goals are set for the army to achieve and it has to work with those goals in mind?
Firing missiles that kill innocent civilians who didn't get a leaflet or who couldn't move or who didn't know where to move to is a much clearer declaration of intentions. It also creates more terrorists. Let's say a Palestinian civilian feels sympathetic towards Israel, but his entire family is that caught as 'collateral damage' in a missile strike. I'm betting that he no longer feels sympathetic towards Israel and may even want revenge.
Honestly, what's the actual 'end game' in all of this? Is blowing up Hamas targets and killing a number of civilians in the process really going to make things better? Are suicide bombings going to make the Israeli's turn around and decide to get out of Palestinian lands completely? Or are each of these things just going to lead to more spirals of conflict until one side is wiped out or some other intervention happens? I certainly don't think these actions aren't going to improve anything, and will if anything make it worse.
Lord Snow |
BigNorseWolf -
1) I can very well get Pepperoni on my pizza... As I have said "Jewish" is not a very strong statement about someone's genes, and it's not an allergy that causes Jews to not eat meat and milk products at the same meal, it's tradition. I find traditions as silly. I eat whatever I want to eat.
2) I am not blaming the 16 year old boy in Gaza, I have stated many times he just is not a very lucky guy. Of course his literal grandparents might not have taken part of the fighting - my literal grandparents didn't. I meant that people who lived before that guy (or myself) was born determined his fate, the difference between him and me is blind luck. I blame him for nothing; I'm just saying that blaming those who live in Israel now of doing unto others what was done unto them is a twofold mistake -
1) those who live in Israel today were never opressed, we were born free happy citizens
2) We are not to blame for the situation that was created around here before he had anything to do about it (in my case due to not existing yet, for example).
The situation now is very delicate, very bad, and very hard to change. That's a sad reality. None of us alive today is resposible for that.
Mark Sweetman |
Not just because terrorists have been attacking Israel,
but because it seems like the world has hardly ever been a nice place to live in for jews.
Personally I would extend the same protection to all peoples of all religions and all ethnic / geographic origin around the world.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not just because terrorists have been attacking Israel in the last 50 years,
but because it seems like the world has hardly ever been a nice place to live in for jews.
The world has very rarely been a nice place for any powerless minority. Jews get there special exception because, as I said before, they've been able to maintain their ethnic heritage, while other groups were assimilated or annihilated?
thejeff |
Icyshadow wrote:Personally I would extend the same protection to all peoples of all religions and all ethnic / geographic origin around the world.Not just because terrorists have been attacking Israel,
but because it seems like the world has hardly ever been a nice place to live in for jews.
The same protection? Each subset of religious/ethnic identity gets it's own heavily armed nation carved out of land someone else lived on?
Icyshadow |
Icyshadow wrote:The world has very rarely been a nice place for any powerless minority. Jews get there special exception because, as I said before, they've been able to maintain their ethnic heritage, while other groups were assimilated or annihilated?Not just because terrorists have been attacking Israel in the last 50 years,
but because it seems like the world has hardly ever been a nice place to live in for jews.
And you suggest they should accept the same fate?
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf -
1) I can very well get Pepperoni on my pizza... As I have said "Jewish" is not a very strong statement about someone's genes, and it's not an allergy that causes Jews to not eat meat and milk products at the same meal, it's tradition. I find traditions as silly. I eat whatever I want to eat.
Right, so then what do you mean when you say you have no choice but to live as a Jew?
2) I am not blaming the 16 year old boy in Gaza, I have stated many times he just is not a very lucky guy.
He isn't getting large metal objects dropped on his head because he lives on a spot of earth that goes face first into the meteor shower-that would be bad luck. He's getting bombs dropped on his head because the nation that controls his section of the planet is insisting on a policy of racial purity for those who control the government. Thats not bad luck, its the deliberate actions of other human beings.
2) We are not to blame for the situation that was created around here before he had anything to do about it (in my case due to not existing yet, for example).
You ARE responsible for maintaining it. You, the current people of Israel, have the power to end the oppression of others with the stroke of a pen. You refuse to, out of some misguided notion that you have absolutely no other choice and that the entire rest of the planet is out to get you simply because of who you are.
You do have a choice. You can decide not to do today what was done to your ancestors in the past.
The situation now is very delicate, very bad, and very hard to change. That's a sad reality. None of us alive today is responsible for that.
You're going to have to change it eventually. Even the Palestinian minority that Israel was left with after the wars is eventually going to get big enough to change the policies.
Berik |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The situation now is very delicate, very bad, and very hard to change. That's a sad reality. None of us alive today is resposible for that.
Of course we are. The people who started all this generations ago are long gone and can't do anything about their mistakes now. We can't just keep making the same mistakes they did while telling ourselves that we're not responsible for the current situation just because we didn't start it.
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:The same protection? Each subset of religious/ethnic identity gets it's own heavily armed nation carved out of land someone else lived on?Nope - just the right to be treated as a human being, subject to the same rights and responsibilities as the guy standing next to him.
Oh. Fine then, we agree on that.
I was discussing the need of Jews to have a state of their own for protection. Particularly why they need to have one, but not every other persecuted minority.
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:And you suggest they should accept the same fate?Icyshadow wrote:The world has very rarely been a nice place for any powerless minority. Jews get there special exception because, as I said before, they've been able to maintain their ethnic heritage, while other groups were assimilated or annihilated?Not just because terrorists have been attacking Israel in the last 50 years,
but because it seems like the world has hardly ever been a nice place to live in for jews.
No, why do you think I do?
Do you think having a state of their own is the only alternative?
Do you think all other persecuted minority groups should get the same?
Remember this particular side thread started with Lord Snow's insistence
that
I just believe that the special circumstances of the Jewish people forces them into having a majority in one country on our globe. Every rule has an exception and I am tempted to think in that case, this exception is Israel), but I can certainly see why people are afraid an anxious when it happens.
Lord Snow |
Lord Snow wrote:The situation now is very delicate, very bad, and very hard to change. That's a sad reality. None of us alive today is resposible for that.Of course we are. The people who started all this generations ago are long gone and can't do anything about their mistakes now. We can't just keep making the same mistakes they did while telling ourselves that we're not responsible for the current situation just because we didn't start it.
If only it were so simple. As I said, the situation is delicate as well as bad. The status qou, while unacceptable, is one with no escape routes, or at least non that I can see. No one in Israel has the political power equired to overrule the religeous population who keep pushing the Palestinians to their limits with illegal settlements( in about a 50 years time, more than half of the citizens in Israel would be religeous, if current rates of baby spawning continue).
Meanwhile, Gaza is ruled by Hamas and is manipulated by Iran and many Jihadist groups around the globe into attacking Israel. Allowing Gaza to become an actual nation would be very dangerous. Not only that, but:
Gaza will not agree to any kind of political deal without the Right Of return - that means that Israel will officaily stop being a Jewish nation and become just like any other democracy. Nice in theory, not so much when so many people in Gaza are out for Jewish blood. Israel would never agree to those terms. Both sides are too boneheaded to reach any sort of middle ground.
So yeah, you can blame the people living now for not solving the issue, but really, from where I'm standning it seems unsolveable. It's either rabbit season or duck season, and there's no real way out of it. If you know of a real way, I and the rest of huminity would be thankeful to hear it.
Comrade Anklebiter |
[Supposed to be after Lord Dice]
I just think that the Middle East is a patchwork of oppressed peoples and that the nation's boundaries there don't have anyone's interests at heart except for the various countries' ruling elites and, of course, Western imperialism.
The only fair and just thing to do is to erase the whole board and start over.
But that's going to lead the conversation nowhere, just me going on about "international proletarian socialist revolution" again and that's never done anything for a thread except make me happy.
Either that or I just start posting Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein links.