Facts about the war in Israel


Off-Topic Discussions

651 to 668 of 668 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

yeah, funny how security got WAY tighter after the second intifada, during which 1000 Israeli citizens were killed and 6000 injured. One can wonder why security is so tight. The security fence? didn't exist before that. MANY of the roadblocks and the most humiliating procedures taken in them? a direct result of that. It's NOT a game, it's war.

I now what "oppression" i "suffer" is nothing compared to that of Palestinians, but I beg you to understand it's only more extreme measures taken in more extreme circumstances.

And the second intifada began after decades of (relative) peace and negotiations, just like you think Palestinians should go back to. Out of which they got nothing but continued expansion of settlements and more loss of territory.

Fighting doesn't work. Not fighting doesn't work. Whatever happens it just gets worse for the Palestinians.

Now try and imagine an alternate world where they haven't started the second intifada. Can you seriously imgaine things are worse for them than they are now? they'd actualy much likelier to be WAY better.The second intifada brought more than a tightening of security - it brought financial collapse to Gaza and the West Bank, shifted international opinion against the Palestinian people and resulted in many Palestinians loosing the jobs they had in Israel. So how did fighting (if you call sending your comrades to blow themselves up at as many citizens as possible "fighting") help them? it's a foolish thing to do and they certianly carry at least some of the responsibility for it's outcome. Don't put it all on Israel.


Lord Snow wrote:
Israel is not entitled to help other people in far away places any more than any other country. It *might* be expected to sympathise more, but that's about it. [...] "We" just don't send our army to participate in local conflicts.

Just what I said you take the moral benefits but not the moral obligations!

Lord Snow wrote:
By the way, Israel *is* always in the front lines of rescue missions from natural disasters like the recent earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Japan.

Most countries do the same it's just communication.

Lord Snow wrote:
Like your country and the dozens of other countires who did nothing about Cambodia, "we" have our own problems.

We did what we could (welcoming people who were able to escape) but as a formal colonial power it was very delicate to do much more.

Just opening your eyes on a map of the area you should understand you've no much choice but to find a way to normalize your relationship with your neighbors.
You're entrapped in the middle of arabian world, if you don't become a moral leader (a reference for your neighbors) you'll be culturally swallowed quickly.
Even inside your borders, demography figures underline the upcoming difficulties. If you reach 40% non-Jewish population you'll have a risk to fragment and, importing Jewish from all-over the world is barely enough to slow that processus.

If it doesn't anticipate and initiate the peace Israel might be its victim and I hardly believe atomic bomb will save you from inflation, unemployement surge and inner social conflicts...

Liberty's Edge

Maybe, if the Palestinians are lucky, the Isrealis will let them have casinos in a hundred years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

yeah, funny how security got WAY tighter after the second intifada, during which 1000 Israeli citizens were killed and 6000 injured. One can wonder why security is so tight. The security fence? didn't exist before that. MANY of the roadblocks and the most humiliating procedures taken in them? a direct result of that. It's NOT a game, it's war.

I now what "oppression" i "suffer" is nothing compared to that of Palestinians, but I beg you to understand it's only more extreme measures taken in more extreme circumstances.

And the second intifada began after decades of (relative) peace and negotiations, just like you think Palestinians should go back to. Out of which they got nothing but continued expansion of settlements and more loss of territory.

Fighting doesn't work. Not fighting doesn't work. Whatever happens it just gets worse for the Palestinians.
Now try and imagine an alternate world where they haven't started the second intifada. Can you seriously imgaine things are worse for them than they are now? they'd actualy much likelier to be WAY better.The second intifada brought more than a tightening of security - it brought financial collapse to Gaza and the West Bank, shifted international opinion against the Palestinian people and resulted in many Palestinians loosing the jobs they had in Israel. So how did fighting (if you call sending your comrades to blow themselves up at as many citizens as possible "fighting") help them? it's a foolish thing to do and they certianly carry at least some of the responsibility for it's outcome. Don't put it all on Israel.

Yup. They probably are worse off now than if they'd just accepted their fate as good little obedient (what's the word? not servants, not serfs, not slaves. something meaning colonized natives in an occupied land). Israel might have taken even more land for settlements. Or maybe not.

But people don't do that. They don't just bend over for oppression. Not for ever. Not even if the chances are small and they probably just make things worse.
Oppression breeds resistance. It's inevitable.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

yeah, funny how security got WAY tighter after the second intifada, during which 1000 Israeli citizens were killed and 6000 injured. One can wonder why security is so tight. The security fence? didn't exist before that. MANY of the roadblocks and the most humiliating procedures taken in them? a direct result of that. It's NOT a game, it's war.

I now what "oppression" i "suffer" is nothing compared to that of Palestinians, but I beg you to understand it's only more extreme measures taken in more extreme circumstances.

And the second intifada began after decades of (relative) peace and negotiations, just like you think Palestinians should go back to. Out of which they got nothing but continued expansion of settlements and more loss of territory.

Fighting doesn't work. Not fighting doesn't work. Whatever happens it just gets worse for the Palestinians.
Now try and imagine an alternate world where they haven't started the second intifada. Can you seriously imgaine things are worse for them than they are now? they'd actualy much likelier to be WAY better.The second intifada brought more than a tightening of security - it brought financial collapse to Gaza and the West Bank, shifted international opinion against the Palestinian people and resulted in many Palestinians loosing the jobs they had in Israel. So how did fighting (if you call sending your comrades to blow themselves up at as many citizens as possible "fighting") help them? it's a foolish thing to do and they certianly carry at least some of the responsibility for it's outcome. Don't put it all on Israel.

Yup. They probably are worse off now than if they'd just accepted their fate as good little obedient (what's the word? not servants, not serfs, not slaves. something meaning colonized natives in an occupied land). Israel might have taken even more land for settlements. Or maybe not.

But people don't do that. They don't just bend over for oppression. Not...

you continue to favour one side unreasonably over the other. When one side is opressed it's "inevitable" that it will fight back with violance. When the other witnesses it's citizens get murdered by the hundreds, is it not inevitable that it tightens security?

And I really don't think that not fighting back with violance means becoming "colonized natives in an occupied land", moreover so when it's not a colony of some big empire that's occupieng the area, it's two ehtnicities with a territory dispute. One just happens to be a lot stronger than the other.

Please, understand, both sides are locked in a position of mutual distrust. israel is building on grounds that both sides claim as their own, and is forcing Palestinians to go through tight security to get to work. Hamas is the leader of Palestinians and it's stated goals are not to acheive indapendance but to destroy Israel, and it's constant battles with Israel only keep making things work. Israel can't reasonably negotiate with Hamas, just as you won't negotiate with a man saying he's out to kill you, you'll just try as hard as you can to make that impossible.

You are constantly trying to put me in the shoes of a Palestinian. Try, with honesty, to put yourself in the shoes of an Israeli for about 60 seconds.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Lord Snow,
How would Israel react if another countjry was building settlements on tis land dividing it up so it was a noviable state. I imagine you'd react violently, yes? Now, explain why the Palestinans shouldn't react violently to your country stealing their land.

The Exchange

Paul Watson wrote:

Lord Snow,

How would Israel react if another countjry was building settlements on tis land dividing it up so it was a noviable state. I imagine you'd react violently, yes? Now, explain why the Palestinans shouldn't react violently to your country stealing their land.

Because it's unwise. It did them nothing but harm over the years. With every round of fighting, they lose more than they can afford. Winning this with warfare is all but impossible for them. Check out my suggestions as a response to your proposed mental exrecise - wouldn't you think they are all better?

The violent reponse is purely emotional, and is fueled further by religeous extremists. From a rational point of view it's idiotic.

The Exchange

I mean seriously, you & I both play Pathfinder, that means we have a strategic mindset. If a group of PCs is outmatched, you expect them to run and fight another day. The PCs can stand around all day explaining to anyone willing to listen that the Demilich was totaly opressing their freedom of movement, but try and fight that bad boy, you are toast, and you don't really get to act surprised.


Lord Snow wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Lord Snow,

How would Israel react if another countjry was building settlements on tis land dividing it up so it was a noviable state. I imagine you'd react violently, yes? Now, explain why the Palestinans shouldn't react violently to your country stealing their land.

Because it's unwise. It did them nothing but harm over the years. With every round of fighting, they lose more than they can afford. Winning this with warfare is all but impossible for them. Check out my suggestions as a response to your proposed mental exrecise - wouldn't you think they are all better?

The violent reponse is purely emotional, and is fueled further by religeous extremists. From a rational point of view it's idiotic.

People aren't rational. Yes, it's idiotic. It's also perfectly predictable.

As I said, Oppression breeds resistance.

The Exchange

Not that people are not entitled to emotional response, and it's not that Israel is not reacting emotionaly. Everyone would. That's understandable. Yet still, that's not the smart thing to do. If people were doing the smart thing, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Hamas and Palestainian leadership has done numerous mistakes over the years. Israeli leadership has done numerous mistakes over the years. With each such mistake things got worse. Sad, true, and upsetting.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Lord Snow,

How would Israel react if another countjry was building settlements on tis land dividing it up so it was a noviable state. I imagine you'd react violently, yes? Now, explain why the Palestinans shouldn't react violently to your country stealing their land.

Because it's unwise. It did them nothing but harm over the years. With every round of fighting, they lose more than they can afford. Winning this with warfare is all but impossible for them. Check out my suggestions as a response to your proposed mental exrecise - wouldn't you think they are all better?

The violent reponse is purely emotional, and is fueled further by religeous extremists. From a rational point of view it's idiotic.

People aren't rational. Yes, it's idiotic. It's also perfectly predictable.

As I said, Oppression breeds resistance.

Agreed :)

do try to diffrentiate legitemate resistance from it's other, darker cousin (the ilegitemate resistance). Wanting indapandance - cool. Wanting to destroy the opressor even after being granted indapendance- not cool.


Lord Snow wrote:

Not that people are not entitled to emotional response, and it's not that Israel is not reacting emotionaly. Everyone would. That's understandable. Yet still, that's not the smart thing to do. If people were doing the smart thing, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Hamas and Palestainian leadership has done numerous mistakes over the years. Israeli leadership has done numerous mistakes over the years. With each such mistake things got worse. Sad, true, and upsetting.

And continues to expand settlements. Continues to claim more and more Palestinian land. That's the ultimate sticking point. That can't be justified as a response to Palestinian attacks.

You've said you don't approve, but I don't think you appreciate how much of a driver of the conflict it is.


Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Lord Snow,

How would Israel react if another countjry was building settlements on tis land dividing it up so it was a noviable state. I imagine you'd react violently, yes? Now, explain why the Palestinans shouldn't react violently to your country stealing their land.

Because it's unwise. It did them nothing but harm over the years. With every round of fighting, they lose more than they can afford. Winning this with warfare is all but impossible for them. Check out my suggestions as a response to your proposed mental exrecise - wouldn't you think they are all better?

The violent reponse is purely emotional, and is fueled further by religeous extremists. From a rational point of view it's idiotic.

People aren't rational. Yes, it's idiotic. It's also perfectly predictable.

As I said, Oppression breeds resistance.

Agreed :)

do try to diffrentiate legitemate resistance from it's other, darker cousin (the ilegitemate resistance). Wanting indapandance - cool. Wanting to destroy the opressor even after being granted indapendance- not cool.

Hamas talks about driving Israel into the sea.

Israel talks about peace and coexistence and continues to take more Palestinian land, leaving the West Bank completely non-viable for an independent state.

One talks. One does. Which is worse?

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Lord Snow,

How would Israel react if another countjry was building settlements on tis land dividing it up so it was a noviable state. I imagine you'd react violently, yes? Now, explain why the Palestinans shouldn't react violently to your country stealing their land.

Because it's unwise. It did them nothing but harm over the years. With every round of fighting, they lose more than they can afford. Winning this with warfare is all but impossible for them. Check out my suggestions as a response to your proposed mental exrecise - wouldn't you think they are all better?

The violent reponse is purely emotional, and is fueled further by religeous extremists. From a rational point of view it's idiotic.

People aren't rational. Yes, it's idiotic. It's also perfectly predictable.

As I said, Oppression breeds resistance.

Agreed :)

do try to diffrentiate legitemate resistance from it's other, darker cousin (the ilegitemate resistance). Wanting indapandance - cool. Wanting to destroy the opressor even after being granted indapendance- not cool.

Hamas talks about driving Israel into the sea.

Israel talks about peace and coexistence and continues to take more Palestinian land, leaving the West Bank completely non-viable for an independent state.

One talks. One does. Which is worse?

uhh, Hamas dosen't just talk, it has been trying it's damned hardest to damage Israel as much as possible ever since it was founded, it's just not very effective right now. Being outmatched affects the results, not the intentions.

If Hamas was more focused on getting indapendant and less on destroying Israel, an agreement would have become MUCH more likely.


Lord Snow wrote:

uhh, Hamas dosen't just talk, it has been trying it's damned hardest to damage Israel as much as possible ever since it was founded, it's just not very effective right now. Being outmatched affects the results, not the intentions.

If Hamas was more focused on getting indapendant and less on destroying Israel, an agreement would have become MUCH more likely.

Even if they didn't remove the language about the destruction of Israel?

That's what you claimed should stop their 20 year peace deal.

Meanwhile, Israel takes more land.


Just read Iran has plan for peace in Syria.
Very interesting has it shows part of the game Iran is playing and its consequences for Israel.

First Iran doesn't expect its plan to be adopted, not that it's completely stupid, but to get the minimum of trust and compromise needed to organise an election in Syria is out of reach.
I hardly believe Syria interests Iran but they want to show they can be an alternative to Turkey and that they are responsible enough to care about peace.
This last point is very important as it's supposed to enforce the idea that Iran is responsible enough to access nuclear power status.

The question then is what for?
I don't believe Iran to be a military but a diplomatic and an economic threat to Israel. Iran is not interested in a war, the last against Iraq (30 years ago) was enough for them. What they want is to become the greatest muslim country.
The only military threat to Iran was Iraq that was neutralized by Americans. Iran also has an economical and religious threat that's Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

Accessing nuclear power Iran will shift from muslim heretic to muslim champion (despite being shia and not sunnite).
First they will secure Iraq. Don't get them wrong, they don't care about bombing and chaos but Iraq should not be military power anymore. To do so they'll use the religion (Iraq is also mainly shia) and they'll tie relationship to the point of having the same voice while speaking about oil.
At the same time they'll continue to develop good relationship with Russia (another oil & gas producer) that will have for consequence to make Azerbaijan (again an oil producer) to choose between Russia and Iran as direct dominant power.

Having that link with some other oil producers Iran will be able to challenge the economic power of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates: The Enemies!
Then they'll go farther in west, first there'll be verbal provocations toward Israel. Nothing strong enough to start a war but it's an easy way to gain Palestinians support. Once Palestinians will believe they have no better ally than Iran in the world, Iran will work for peace.
They'll pressure Palestinians (with an: "either you sign or we abandon you") and they'll use their alliance with Russia and their oil-hungry client China to influence (their in depted partner) USA to pressure on Israel (with an equivalent: "either you sign or we abandon you").
Most probably the agreement will better for Israel than for Palestinians (again Iran doesn't care as it's not its land) but at the end it will be Iran winning as the country that made peace possible.
In a peaceful area, the US will be very happy to invest and built, the Chinese will be happy to sell and the Iranians to spread Shia doctrine.

The consequence for Israel will be the lost of its diplomatic influence and after a short burst of its economy a big crush.
The money will be invested in Israel's neighbors economy, unemployment will surge in Israel as industry will relocate to cheaper labor areas. At the same time Israeli society will be shaken from inside as more and more non-Jewish will enter the country.

And given Israel still has a bad image among them, muslims will use their economical and cultural development to smother Israel.
Potentially, given the democratic support (1 man = 1 vote) and an advantageous demography for muslims, Israel might see the muslims "colonizing back" culturally its territory.

The only way for Israel to control and influence the effects of peace is to reach it such a way it'll make its image positive even among some muslims.


If you feel that being searched by isreali police is oppression, you can vote to change it. They can not.

If you feel that you've had enough , you can leave. You won't let them.

If your government were giving all the water to someone else, you would vote in a different government. They cannot.

You keep insisting that the only way that jews can be secure in their rights is if they have rights that other people don't. Everything i've personally seen or seen in history has said the opposite: the only way to make sure that anyone has rights is to make sure that everyone has rights, then keep the bread and circuses flowing.

Quote:
Let's play a roleplay game. You are the ultimate authority in Israel. Your word will become the reality in the region. You now have to make some desicions. What do you change? what do you do diffrently. Choose carefuly because every life lost on every side of the conflict is your responsibility.

Option 1: two state solution.

Step 1: Here are palastinian passports. Door, ass, you know the rest.

Step 2: we are booting all half a million settlers out of the west bank. This will ensure that i am a one term ultimate authority, but hey, aruba's better than israel anyway. The settlers cannot exist there without the military guarding them and the military cannot safely stand there withou oppressing people.

Step 3: Find a large number of Palestinians experienced with agriculture and sell them the land cheap/free on the condition that it remain under agricultural use and in their possession.

Finish the wall and ride it out.

Option 2) Annexation

Step 1: Strengthen the courts and rights of individuals, Put in a lot of young judges and make the laws regarding such things very hard to change.

Step 2) Give full rights of isreali citizenship to palastinians. Its not like they're genetically incapable of handling democracy: 20? % of Israel is Palestinian anyway.

Quote:

And please be realistic about it - you SHOULD prioritise the needs and safety of your people more than that of other people, just as you would do if it was your country we are talking about, not Israel.

What do you do?

You have a very poor record of predicting my patterns of behavior. I make very few concessions in my reverence for life based on species, much less something as meaningless as a country.


Option 3) Cooperation

Step 1: Set a precise date for independance (in no less than 12 months, no more than 24);

Step 2: Use that 12/24 months, in cooperation of other countries, to make the formation -on Palestinian ground- of police officers, judges, civil officers, journalists;

Step 3: At the same time use UN & foreign funds for a massive real estate/infrastructure project and create media;

Step 4: Use jurists in formation to write a "proto-constitution" and a "proto-legal system";

Step 5: Organise elections with a vote 2 weeks before the independance;

Step 6: Make Israel the first ambassy in Palestinia and Palestinia to open its first ambassy in Israel;

Step 7: Cross your fingers, there'll be some attacks but keep going on...

651 to 668 of 668 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Facts about the war in Israel All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
Deep 6 FaWtL
Weird News Stories
Good New Stories
Did you know...?
Ramblin' Man