I believe the kidnappings were done by members of Hamas, but they were acting without orders. Is that incorrect?
I believe that they were members of some affiliated group rather than hamas itself.
As to Hamas being unable to stop the rocketfire, yes and no. Hamas probably couldn't ensure that absolutely 0 rockets were fired into Israel, but they could chose not to fire any themselves and the over all rocketfire would decrease greatly.
Hell, they could even go wild and work with Palestinian authorities to stop rocketfire and arrest individuals who fire said rockets.
Hamas ARE the Palestinian authorities.
Like I've tried to explain: You can't just go up to someone launching rockets and say "hey stop that" . Chances are usually pretty good they're packing other military grade hardware. Palastinians Cannot move freely within what is allegedly their own territorry A palastinian anti terrorist unit would get stopped cold at any Israeli check point.
Also, maybe in the minds of some it is acceptable to kidnap or murder innocemts in payback for other people's alleged crimes (ie. Arrests) but no civilized country allows that.
I cannot see the difference between that and launching bombs you know are going to vastly affect civilians.
It would not. This factual error of yours shows your lack of understanding of the situation and undercuts your entire argument. You think hamas is like a standard military or government where it can actually control the actions of its subordinates: that isn't the case.
Hamas isn't out there saying "we can't control this, it's not us." Right now, it is Hamas firing the rockets. Therefore, it is within Hamas' power to stop the rocket fire.
It is also with Hamas' power to announce it's policy of "no more attacking Israel." And it could use it's position of leadership in Gaza to do it's best to stop those attacks and punish the offenders.
But Egypt cracked down on the border after ousting the Muslim Brotherhood, putting lots of pressure on Hamas because no money and few supplies made it to Gaza.
At this moment, with the Gazan economy tanking, all Hamas' factions know that with the Egyptian border closed they're done. So they'll keep launching missiles in hopes of getting Israel to concede to some sort of border opening. It's Hamas' only hope of retaining power in Gaza.
As to your request for a citation: will you accept Israeli statements? I've seen the videos of Hamas gunmen grabbing children, but since those videos aren't from Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, I'm not sure how much they'll sway your opinion.
|
Honestly, Lord Snow, there is a very important difference between the concepts of explanation and excuse. Explanations merely tell us why. Excuses are when those explanations are seen to take away responsibility for someone's actions.
Without the treaty of Versailles, it is quite likely there wouldn't have been a WWII. The treaty is an explanation, but never an excuse.
I'm not sure if you tried to agree with me or not (sometimes hard to figure out the tone of a written massage), but you just 100% backed me up here. What I was trying to say is that it's wrong to blame the British for the murders, lynches and attacks that Palestinians performed against Jews in the early 20th century. What you said about explanation Vs. excuse is exactly the point. It is also, by the way, what I've been trying to say about Hamas from the start of the discussion. Everyone was using the "but what would you expect Hamas to do, they don't have any other way to fight". Which is an explanation for *why* they attack civilians, but not an excuse (I don't think there is an excuse for something like that). And, before someone pounces on me here - yes, I am aware that the IDF also puts civilians in the lines of fire. Yes, they too have an explanation and not an excuse. All I ask for is to avoid the hypocrisy of letting Hamas an easy pass on it's declared, malicious, purposeful attacks against civilians while holding the IDF 1000% guilty for the deaths of civilians that, given the circumstances, it does as much as it can to avoid. Both are equally guilty.
Yet you wouldn't for a moment suggest to absolve the Germans of the lion's share of the responsibility for world war 2, would you?Nope - but neither would I absolve the Allies. I'm all for increasing the level of blame rather than absolving parties.
Good. Then by the same logic you shouldn't absolve the Palestinians of the lion's share of the responsibility for their hostilities in the matter. Meaning, that if you were to blame only one involved party in their actions, it would be them. Agreed?
Also? Dropping the gve rhetoric might help. Even lord snow points out where Israel had erred, and he is a proud Israeli.
Whoa, whoa, I wouldn't go that far :P
My motivation behind the discussion here is not to show how righteous Israel is. In fact, I don't think it is at all. It's simply that usually there's a tendency to be *really* one sided when judging the conflict in the middle east. In most international media, as well as in this thread, most people seem to either be in the "Hamas are a bloodthirsty army of monsters who want to murder the Israeli angels" or the "Israel is killing billions of innocents for absolutely no reason!!!!" camp. Several in this thread have had very fair views, most didn't. I really hope that through a 16 pages discussion, I've managed to convince some people to reconsider some of their views and maybe understand the situation a bit more. It's more about ironing out the truth as I see it then it is about defending Israel.|
|
I'm trying to figure out if those rallies are mostly Islamic refugees or native Europeans, but can't really seem to find an indication anywhere. Seems like most of them are Islamic, though.
Also, it seems like the IDF is preparing to pull out soon, according to Netanyahu because the objective of taking down the tunnels into Israel has been accomplished.
Good. Then by the same logic you shouldn't absolve the Palestinians of the lion's share of the responsibility for their hostilities in the matter. Meaning, that if you were to blame only one involved party in their actions, it would be them. Agreed?
Nope - but I'll meet you halfway.
Israel has a share of responsibility for the hostilities.Palestine has a share of responsibility for the hostilities.
I'm not going into saying one has a lion's share over the other, and I'm not going to blame only one party for it. Because as soon as you say that one is more responsible than the other, then you are in essence absolving the other (because they then become less responsible).
For any resolution to occur, both Israel and Palestine need to make serious concessions. And yes that includes Hamas and Fatah and the other Palestinian militant groups.
And I'll add as a post-script, to date neither group has shown any real intent to make concessions.
Hamas / Fatah / etc continue to maintain the fallacy that they can somehow remove Israel from history.
Israel continue to maintain the fallacy that they will pare back settlements, etc.
So yes Lord Snow, neither leadership group is really interested in peace right now... and they are both to blame for it.
But at least the Israeli people have a reasonably good quality of life in comparison to those living under the iron curtain in Gaza / West Bank.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good. Then by the same logic you shouldn't absolve the Palestinians of the lion's share of the responsibility for their hostilities in the matter. Meaning, that if you were to blame only one involved party in their actions, it would be them. Agreed?Nope - but I'll meet you halfway.
Israel has a share of responsibility for the hostilities.
Palestine has a share of responsibility for the hostilities.I'm not going into saying one has a lion's share over the other, and I'm not going to blame only one party for it. Because as soon as you say that one is more responsible than the other, then you are in essence absolving the other (because they then become less responsible).
For any resolution to occur, both Israel and Palestine need to make serious concessions. And yes that includes Hamas and Fatah and the other Palestinian militant groups.
Just to clarify - I only wanted to say that specifically the acts of aggression carried by Palestinians in the early 20th century are their fault. They did it. Similarly acts of aggression by the Jews are the Jews' fault. Meaning, account every party to it's own actions.
And yes, with your current post I agree completely. I hope you can see that, while there's very good reasons to doubt that Israel is willing to make the concessions it needs to make, there's at least an equally good reason to doubt that about the Palestinians. As we discussed before, in the west bank they are not even willing to acknowledge Israel - making it very hard for Israel to stop the occupation. Meanwhile, Israel is continuing with the construction of more and more settlements, gets into wars in Gaza, and just generally gives all Palestinians a good reason to hate it, which makes it very hard for the Palestinians to be the first to give any sort of concession. The bottom line is that the situations is complex, and you can't just blame it all on Israel, not even most of it. Everything happening now is a result of something that happened earlier, and the Palestinians insistence has been as much a part of their undoing as anything Israel has done. If we can agree on the general spirit of the things I just said, then I think the matter is settled, with both of us able to respect the other and the other's point of view. Agreed on this? :)
Just to clarify - I only wanted to say that specifically the acts of aggression carried by Palestinians in the early 20th century are their fault. They did it. Similarly acts of aggression by the Jews are the Jews' fault. Meaning, account every party to it's own actions.
Yep - looks like we were just arguing over nothing :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'll add as a post-script, to date neither group has shown any real intent to make concessions.
Hamas / Fatah / etc continue to maintain the fallacy that they can somehow remove Israel from history.
Israel continue to maintain the fallacy that they will pare back settlements, etc.
So yes Lord Snow, neither leadership group is really interested in peace right now... and they are both to blame for it.
But at least the Israeli people have a reasonably good quality of life in comparison to those living under the iron curtain in Gaza / West Bank.
Very true. Current state of affairs harms both Israelis and Palestinians (would I have preferred to live in a country that does not murder, with no compulsory service in the army, and where all those billions of dollars spent on war would be spent on improving health, education, and the economy? yes, please), but Palestinians are in a far worse shape. Which is why I think there's more pressure on their leadership to agree to making concessions. More of a moral obligation - it's their own people they are screwing, after all.
|
|
Just to clarify - I only wanted to say that specifically the acts of aggression carried by Palestinians in the early 20th century are their fault. They did it. Similarly acts of aggression by the Jews are the Jews' fault. Meaning, account every party to it's own actions.Yep - looks like we were just arguing over nothing :P
Oh, man. Agreeing with someone. I feel all fuzzy in the my stomach :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The palastinians have nothing. What more do you want them to concede?
You don't see. You're too busy being pithy to listen.
You can arbitrarily cut off the cycle of violence and pretend that hamas is always the aggressor. Oh right, israel is only firing in return for the rockets... but that's disingenuous. The rockets are a reprisal for an arrest. The arrest is revenge for a kidnaping. The kidnaping is a revenge for an arrest, the rest is a revenge for...
Vengeance, vengeance, vengeance. It's an unending cycle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hamas isn't out there saying "we can't control this, it's not us."
Of course not. If you're launching rockets as your only chip in negotiations, do you advertise "well I can only stop this for a year tops..."
Again, Hamas can stop firing the rockets. They cannot stop the rockets from being fired.
It is also with Hamas' power to announce it's policy of "no more attacking Israel."
And in a week one of those 15 dozen hamas offshoots will have people with home made rockets and the iranian guy in a trenchcoat giving them arms. If the peoples front of Judea won't attack the romans, the judean peoples front is right around the corner.
And it could use it's position of leadership in Gaza to do it's best to stop those attacks and punish the offenders.
Its best will not be nearly good enough for Israel. I've already shown this. Thats how the recent flare up got started.
At this moment, with the Gazan economy tanking, all Hamas' factions know that with the Egyptian border closed they're done. So they'll keep launching missiles in hopes of getting Israel to concede to some sort of border opening. It's Hamas' only hope of retaining power in Gaza.
Hamas' political strategy is "we're the party that REAAALY hates israel" and "Israel is responsible for your suffering" ! The more people suffer the more they turn to hamas.
As to your request for a citation: will you accept Israeli statements?
Would you accept the Palestinians?
I've seen the videos of Hamas gunmen grabbing children, but since those videos aren't from Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, I'm not sure how much they'll sway your opinion.
Lets see the video. You've already shown you're willing to show a video showing one thing and say its something completely different.
And for the record, though it's been said before, Hamas had not launched rockets into Israel since the 2012 truce. Other groups had, but according to Israel, Hamas was doing its best to stop them.
And the number of rockets was a tiny fraction of what's been launched during this conflict.
Truly? This I didn't know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets see the video.
As to your comments: If Hamas can't effectively police the area, why should Israel deal with Hamas? If Hamas wishes to be taken seriously as a regional powerbroker, it needs to show itself capable of these actions. But if you're right, then Israel is right to ignore Hamas' demands because conceding to those demands will only mean more violence later.
Right now, Hamas is facing the equivalent of Detroit. It can't pay it's workers, and the infrastructure Gaza needs went to build tunnels and buy weapons. Its only hope is some sort of truce where Israel opens the border crossings. If it doesn't, Hamas is broken and within a few years will likely be replaced.
Totally unrelated links:
Hamas commits war crimes? Shocked to find gambling etc. etc..
Slowly, the Palestinians are realizing that Hamas is the problem. Other Arab nations are also deciding that Hamas isn't the best choice of an ally.
Lets see the video.
Better than your other but far from conclusive.
In the first one, unless the guy with a rocket is looking for a shield from ~ where the camera man is I don't think the kids going to do any good for the 5 seconds he's being dragged.
Neither is long enough to support whats going on, and it looks like the kids are pulling an adult along in the second one, rather than being forced. The time gap means you can't trace the person who fired the rocket to the person being lead/pulled/ out of the house.
As to your comments: If Hamas can't effectively police the area, why should Israel deal with Hamas?From a real politick standpoints? They shouldn't. And they effectively don't. There's no deal making, there is only deal theatre: maintaining the perception that there's some discussion going on and that things may someday change while it gobbles up land bit by bit, slowly turning up the temperature of the frog in the pot.*
From a moral standpoint, hamas is the democratically elected leadership of the palastinians. They're the government that Israel is either continually invading or has conquered, depending on how you look at it.
If Hamas wishes to be taken seriously as a regional powerbroker, it needs to show itself capable of these actions.It CAN:T. Can not. Its boot strap levitation. Cold fission. A perpetual motion machine.
Could you at least give me some signal that you acknowledge that I'm saying this because this is like the 5th time you've had to rely on this idea as part of your reasoning.
Say "yes they can!" or something and explain why you think they can.
Israel doesn't let them have any of the tools they would need to do this.(not really a surprise there because they'd probably use it to shoot israel)
But if you're right, then Israel is right to ignore Hamas' demands because conceding to those demands will only mean more violence later.It will mean less deaths. The problem is that it will mean more Israeli deaths, and Israel seems to find 1,000 to one acceptable retribution.
Right now, Hamas is facing the equivalent of Detroit. It can't pay it's workers, and the infrastructure Gaza needs went to build tunnels and buy weapons.you are VASTLY over estimating the cost of those.
Hamas was declared a terrorist organization, which despite winning the election and some creative accounting to go around that, got their funding slahsed to pieces.
Its only hope is some sort of truce where Israel opens the border crossings. If it doesn't, Hamas is broken and within a few years will likely be replaced.Look how Fatah got replaced. Hamas IS going to get replaced.. probably by someone angrier.
Going back to the status quo is a non starter for the palastinians. That situation is not sustainable.
*this doesn't actually work but you get the idea.
Old allies rejecting Hamas
Saudi Arabia? Jordan? United Arab Emirates? Egypt under anybody other than Morsi? Which of these are old allies of Hamas?
From a moral standpoint, hamas is the democratically elected leadership of the palastinians. They're the government that Israel is either continually invading or has conquered, depending on how you look at it.
So a democratically elected group
-whose founding document supports the real ethnic cleansing of the Middle East,-who can't refrain from launching rockets at its neighbor,
-who (by your own admission) cannot even begin to police its own people
should be allowed to try to kill Israelis because it's the group the Gazans elected? Strange morals.
It CAN:T. Can not. Its boot strap levitation. Cold fission. A perpetual motion machine.Could you at least give me some signal that you acknowledge that I'm saying this because this is like the 5th time you've had to rely on this idea as part of your reasoning.
Say "yes they can!" or something and explain why you think they can.
Israel doesn't let them have any of the tools they would need to do this.(not really a surprise there because they'd probably use it to shoot israel)
You keep saying they can't like they don't have a media operation.
Step 1: Get in front of the cameras and say the words "We will stop trying to kill Israelis." That's pretty easy to do. After all, they get in front of their cameras to say "we will keep trying to kill Israelis." It's one word change.Step 2: Turn over people and groups that want to kill Israelis. Hamas has enough small arms to effectively do this on a small scale, even if they cannot manage the entire territory of Gaza.
There. That's it. Two things. But you keep saying "They can't" like I'm asking for them to fly to the moon. It reminds me of the old adage "whether you believe you can or you can't, you're right."
you are VASTLY over estimating the cost of those.Hamas was declared a terrorist organization, which despite winning the election and some creative accounting to go around that, got their funding slahsed to pieces.
You should really do some research on the lifestyles of senior Hamas officials. For having their funding "slashed to pieces" they do pretty well living in luxury villas. There's plenty of money, but then the thugs at the top would have to stop living the high life.
Look how Fatah got replaced. Hamas IS going to get replaced.. probably by someone angrier.
Fatah is in power in the West Bank. I don't know what you mean by "replaced."
Of course the situation isn't sustainable. Hamas wants Israel destroyed. Generally speaking, keeping a neighbor like that isn't a great idea.
So a democratically elected group
-whose founding document supports the real ethnic cleansing of the Middle East,
-who can't refrain from launching rockets at its neighbor,
-who (by your own admission) cannot even begin to police its own peopleshould be allowed to try to kill Israelis because it's the group the Gazans elected? Strange morals.
In my opinion they're allowed to try to kill some isrealis because said Israelis are unjustly making their lives hell.
You keep saying they can't like they don't have a media operation.
Step 1: Get in front of the cameras and say the words "We will stop trying to kill Israelis."
Step 2: Person in front of camera is shot. New Hamas less that guy disavows any knowledge of who that idiot is or why anyone let him have a camera.
Which is like coke saying "we won't have sugar in the water anymore" Hamas has 3 things,
1) we hate israel
2) We're not the Fatah party that let you down and
3) An oddly competent crisis response team. Israel blew up your house? here's a dozer. Killed by isreali bombs? Here's a check. Relative ofa suicide bomber? Oh look, this suitcase of cash fell off the back of my truck. Here you go ma'm. Seriously, reading up on those guys i would have invited them to do new orleans...
You're treating Hamas like a single entity. Its not. Its 2 family feuds away from being an autonomous collective.
Step 2: Turn over people and groups that want to kill Israelis.
Thats a lot of hamas. If your suggestion starts with turning in half your political party , and the heavily armed half at that, you're probably looking at a second ammendment veto.
It reminds me of the old adage "whether you believe you can or you can't, you're right."
If i had a dollar for every first aid I've had to do because someone thought they could and weren't right I could probably get to gencon...
They can't" like I'm asking for them to fly to the moon
Manned space mission to the moon or peace in the middle east. We did one of those in 10 years and haven't managed the other one in 10 thousand. I wish i was asking for something that easy.
Fatah is in power in the West Bank. I don't know what you mean by "replaced."
I could have missed an election but
Political groups
Hamas (74)
Fatah (45)
PFLP (3)
Palestinian People's Party (1)
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (1)
Independent Palestine (2)
Third Way (2)
Independents (4)
Linky
Mahmoud al-Zahar's House - quote from article: Israeli strikes also hit the home in western Gaza City of Mr Bassem Naim, a senior Hamas official, and those of former health minister Fathi Hammad and Hamas MP Ismail al-Ashqar, both in Jabalia in the north.
Doug - which of those is a 'luxury villa'?
Good. Then by the same logic you shouldn't absolve the Palestinians of the lion's share of the responsibility for their hostilities in the matter. Meaning, that if you were to blame only one involved party in their actions, it would be them. Agreed?Yet you wouldn't for a moment suggest to absolve the Germans of the lion's share of the responsibility for world war 2, would you?Nope - but neither would I absolve the Allies. I'm all for increasing the level of blame rather than absolving parties.
Uhm... You've got things backwards. It's not the palestinians that are commiting genocide.
While I'm loathe to make holocaust comparisions, blaming palestinians for the violence is like blaming the WW2 jewish resistance movements, that they should just be nicer because then Hitler could reason with them and stop his counter-terrorist actions.
Again, I don't really like holocaust comparisions but you brought it up so...
|
|
Good. Then by the same logic you shouldn't absolve the Palestinians of the lion's share of the responsibility for their hostilities in the matter. Meaning, that if you were to blame only one involved party in their actions, it would be them. Agreed?Yet you wouldn't for a moment suggest to absolve the Germans of the lion's share of the responsibility for world war 2, would you?Nope - but neither would I absolve the Allies. I'm all for increasing the level of blame rather than absolving parties.Uhm... You've got things backwards. It's not the palestinians that are commiting genocide.
While I'm loathe to make holocaust comparisions, blaming palestinians for the violence is like blaming the WW2 jewish resistance movements, that they should just be nicer because then Hitler could reason with them and stop his counter-terrorist actions.
Again, I don't really like holocaust comparisions but you brought it up so...
Please re-read that discussion. I was not blaming Palestinians for the current deaths (although they do, as usual, carry some of the blame). I was responding to someone who tried to blame Jews for the entire conflict, as if the Arabs were always peaceful and Jews came in and ruined everything - I was trying to demonstrate that there's a lot of blood between the two people. The specific example I gave was a refute of what I thought Mark Sweetman was saying - that Palestinians shouldn't be blamed for their aggression under the British mandate, that if anyone should be blamed it's the British.
Use the other comparison I gave - a man murders his wife, and his line of defense in court is "Maybe I was the one who wielded the knife, but the only reason I lost control of myself and killed my wife is that I had a really long hard day at work. It's my boss you should blame for the murder, not me." Obviously faulty argument. Wheeling back to the actual discussion, I was saying Palestinians were the ones responsible for this, this, this, and this. There also many more, smaller clashes. They were initiated by and carried out by Palestinians. You can say that the British presence was an external pressure that drove those people to violence - to which I would replay that that's obvious. Most humans aren't naturally inclined to go seek people to kill, and some sort of external or internal pressure is almost always the cause for violence. However, just like you wouldn't blame the boss of a wife killer for the actions of his employee (even if the boss *was* being very unfair and agitating), you would similarly not blame the British for the Jewish blood that Palestinians have drawn.
Slight aside - but Uri Avnery sounds like a interesting figure.
Lord Snow - is there much in the local media from Gush Shalom and similar groups?
|
|
Slight aside - but Uri Avnery sounds like a interesting figure.
Lord Snow - is there much in the local media from Gush Shalom and similar groups?
Not much, I fear. The peace camp in Israel is weak, fractured and despaired. Most young people with views similar to mine just choose to give up and leave the country if they can. I plan to do so once I finish with my studies and with the compulsory service in the army - my main motivation being a feeling of helplessness and loathing the fact that the crimes my government is committing are the actions that represent me. Interestingly I read an article today by an Israeli Palestinian who encouraged people exactly like me not to think that way - his phrasing was: "Just like the many should not be judged by the actions of the few, so do the few not be judged be judged by the actions of the many.". Essentially, asking Israelis who feel guilty for their government's actions to stop blaming themselves and start blaming the people in charge and the community in which we live. His interest in the matter is not coincidental - most young people who care have either decided to run away, or devout themselves to struggles they feel they can win - like improving the lives of the poor in Israel, rather than risk dipping their toes in the politics of the war.
Those left to carry the effort for peace are either the old and tired, or the radical. The old and tired are powerless, the radical do more harm than good.
I was not blaming Palestinians for the current deaths (although they do, as usual, carry some of the blame).
No, they don't.
I was responding to someone who tried to blame Jews for the entire conflict,
The ethnicity of the aggressors are irrelevant, and while racism is widespread in Israel it's the Israelic state, as well as various racist militants in Israel that the state is accepting of, that is to blame. Completely. Just like the british empire is to blame for the genocide of native americans and the Rwandan government is to blame for the Tutsi genocide.
That the native americans shot bows against the invaders doesn't make them "partially to blame" for the genocide.
And while racism was extremely prevalent in the british empire, not every person of british heritage was to blame for the genocide. Just like how not "jews" are to blame for the palestinian genocide; the Israeli state and it's cooperators are. The jewish inhabitants of Israel benefit from the genocide, but it's not their fault (except for the various pro-genocide groups in Israel).
Use the other comparison I gave - a man murders his wife, and his line of defense in court is "Maybe I was the one who wielded the knife, but the only reason I lost control of myself and killed my wife is that I had a really long hard day at work. It's my boss you should blame for the murder, not me." Obviously faulty argument. Wheeling back to the actual discussion, I...
Nope, the comparision would be more like, a woman murders her husband, and her line of defense in court is "Yes, I killed him, because he's beaten and raped me for fifteen years and I couldn't get him to stop and the police said "well that's your problem" when I tried to get him arrested".
Well, the IDF said the same thing during the last ceasefire, yet continued to kill people during that too, so I'm not too hopeful.
Not much, I fear. The peace camp in Israel is weak, fractured and despaired. Most young people with views similar to mine just choose to give up and leave the country if they can. I plan to do so once I finish with my studies and with the compulsory service in the army - my main motivation being a feeling of helplessness and loathing the fact that the crimes my government is committing are the actions that represent me. Interestingly I read an article today by an Israeli Palestinian who encouraged people exactly like me not to think that way - his phrasing was: "Just like the many should not be judged by the actions of the few, so do the few not be judged be judged by the actions of the many.". Essentially, asking Israelis who feel guilty for their government's actions to stop blaming themselves and start blaming the people in charge and the community in which we live. His interest in the matter is not coincidental - most young people who care have either decided to run away, or devout themselves to struggles they feel they can win - like improving the lives of the poor in Israel, rather than risk dipping their toes in the politics of the war.
Those left to carry the effort for peace are either the old and tired, or the radical. The old and tired are powerless, the radical do more harm than good.
... Giant army camp?
This, this, this and this
(Long quote)
The other day I was bopping around wikipedia, trying to figure out how the Faisal played by Sir Alec Guinness in Lawrence of Arabia ended up the King of Iraq. The answer turned out to be the Franco-Syrian War, which, the links led me to believe, put the kibosh on the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.
Should've known the French were to blame...
Slight aside - but Uri Avnery sounds like a interesting figure.More Cock
And I have absolutely no idea who Jonathan Cook is, but I think someone named The Pink Dragon keeps linking to their blog?
More radicals who do more harm than good:
Just like the british empire is to blame for the genocide of native americans and the Rwandan government is to blame for the Tutsi genocide.
That the native americans shot bows against the invaders doesn't make them "partially to blame" for the genocide.
IIRC, smallpox-infected blankets were invented by the Right Honorable Lord Amherst, it's true, but I'd personally put the lion's share of aboriginal American genocide on the govt's of AmeriKKKa rather than Perfidious Albion.
Rwanda? My god, what are the French doing here? I'm shocked, gambling, etc.
In other news, after incurring $1.60 in late fees from the local library, I'm finally putting the finishing touches on a timely re-read of a pamphlet by Ol' V.I.
I would try to keep things on am individual level here before things get nationalist and ugly. An individual palastinian looking for revenge for a kid killed by an Israeli (and switch the nationalities around) is a lot not understandable to outsiders and a hell of a lot more palatable than good guys vs bad guys. Then again that's just me.
All of a sudden over the past couple of days, articles about the Dahiya Doctrine have been flooding my Facebook Feed.
Islamist propaganda: The Dahiya Doctrine: State Terrorism and a Philosophy of War Crime
Older, Zionist propaganda: The Dahiya Doctrine: Fighting dirty or a knock-out punch?
|
|
More radicals who do more harm than good:
It's not that the radicals never fight for a worthy cause, it's that they also fight for either unworthy causes or strictly delusional ones. So let's say Hadash calls for action against dismissal of Arab workers, but also for, say, communism (many members of Hadash would have all banks in Israel become national institutes, for example).
That way, when the average Joe hears about the sensible attempt to do something to stop dismissal of Arab workers in Israel, it's all too easy for him to revert to ad hominem and just shrug it off as "one of those things that those crazy people in Hadash say." It's human nature to do that. The effect is that merely by being associated with the radicals, most leftists are discredited.Having said all that, Hadash is more in the "powerless" camp than the "radical" one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, what?
For workers revolution!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um. . . What? Tell me, how far does that go?
Pretty far. Politicians, IDF, border guards, people voting for the parties that keep them locked up if they have a choice...
Do Americans who have lost their jobs to Mexican immigrants (to draw on a stereotype) get carte blanche to kill Mexicans because the Mexicans made their lives hell?
No, because the actual effect of the mexicans is minimal and the mexican isn't doing anything wrong.
Native Americans who lost their lands to European Americans?
The difference there is they can leave the reservation and the passage of time. If they were trapped on the reservation I'd say yes. If it were still the 1800s i'd say yes. (Custard was the bad guy)
The parallels with native Americans are strikingly similar. The new people move in, slowly annex more and more land doing a majority of the violence to the natives, but as soon as the natives do ANY violence back there are cries of barbarian! Savage!
Men or women in unhappy marriages?
You can leave marriage.
Parents who didn't want children?
You really don't understand the difference between unhappy and hell do you? There are differences in degree that matter, its not binary.
You're making my life worse by existing isn't a good excuse to kill someone.
And that isn't remotely the argument. Its someone's ACTIONS that are making someone's life hell. You are consistently unable to comprehend an argument as its been given and need to change it to attempt to refute it.
Israelis are keeping Palestinians bottled up in the most densely inhabited place on earth on pain of being shot. Israelis top this off by lobbing in bombs, demolishing houses, arresting people exercising their right to free speech and detaining them indefinitely, controlling the roads in what is allegedly not their territory to further divide the Palestinians, and diverting most of water in the area to THEIR settlements.
But ignoring that, do you not believe that someone trying to kill you gives you the right to try and kill them back?
Do you only believe in that right when people are white, western or something? Because the Israelis are trying to kill the palastinians, the only difference is that they're succeeding.
If I'm in the middle of jacking someones car and they pull a gun, no, I can't try to kill them back.
The only way you can cast the Israelis as the ones defending themselves is to decide that the Palestinians are starting every conflict (Which you do. Constantly). This is incredibly arbitrary and requires an extreme Isreali bias. The bombs are a response to the rockets, the rockets are a response to an incursion, the incursion is a response to the kidnaping, the kidnaping is a response to an arrest, the arrest is a response to...
There is no valid, justifiable way to say that the Israelis are only shooting "back" while the Palestinians are shooting just for the mustache twirling evil lolz.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Palestinians have a right to kill Israelis, as you say they do, do the Israelis have a right to kill Palestinians that are trying to kill them?
No, because the palastinians have to fight to climb above conditions that are so bad that they warrant fighting. (or at the very least can reasonably reach the conclussion that they have no other choice)
If you stop asking deliberately leading questions, you get strait answers.
Ignoring your accusations of racism, this isn't about what they are doing, I'm asking you if the Israeli's have the right to kill the people trying to kill them. Its really a simple question, I can't believe you would so consistently misunderstand it.
Much like your attempt to steer the question ONLY to rockets, the question is more complicated than you're making it out to be.
As phrased the answer is no, because the people trying to kill them are trying to do so for very good reasons. Again, If i'm stealing someone's car and they pull a gun, I can't pull a gun myself and claim self defense.
Not always. Think of a forced marriage for example.
Stab away. Thats kidnapping.