Under fire


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 1,056 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Quote:
Of course, Israel has also been unwilling to actually return to the '67 borders or allow Palestinians anything like a sovereign state. None of the times the Palestinians have been asked to give up the right of return, and recognize Israel in a truce that promises an end to violence has anything like that been on the table.

Just like the Palestinians, Israel is irrationally unwilling to be moved about certain crucial subject. Just like I said that Palestinians will have to give up the right of return and the desire to destroy Israel, Israel would have to give back lands (all the non-religious, non crazy political parties in Israel agree to the 1967 borders) and destroy all the illegal settlements.

As I said, this scenario is unlikely, but it's the most reasonable middle ground that can be achieved. The problem is that in both sides of the conflict, fanatics are preventing this from happening.


Here is an interesting comment on the latest happenings.

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-07-21/


Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

Well, Israel does care and I know that for a fact. The thought of economic, academic and cultural isolation terrifies the people here - it's evident by the way the media goes bananas whenever some farmer in south America refuses to buy Israeli tomatoes, or some dreary professor would not attend a convention in Israel. Any such event gets twice the press and reaction as any attack Hamas can usually make.

And I'm not counting on the U.S exerting pressure, that's unlikely. In Europe, however, the winds are blowing in that direction.

Quote:
The palastinians have nothing to offer israel. They cannot guarantee an end to the rocket attacks. The palastinians simply have nothing to bargain with.

They have a couple of very valuable trading chips - giving up the right of return, and recognizing Israel in a truce that promises an end to violence.

The reason these two will suffice is that even without Palestinians offering to give much to Israel in return for their freedom, a truce would mean they would stop taking so much. The price Israel is paying to maintain control on the Palestinians is huge - casualties, the animosity of the entire Arabic world and much of the Islamic and western worlds, billions of dollars every year, the need for mandatory service in the army... and on top of all these pragmatic things, Israel is paying with it's soul. There is a saying in Israel that roughly translates as "the conquest corrupts us", and it's true. The toll of living with almost 2 million refugees in our grip, has eroded the idealistic zionism into a nationalistic, racist, violent ideology over the year. As the recent wave of violence commited against Arabs and leftist activists can testify, there are ever growing forces in Israel that grew up to learn to...

I honestly thought Israel was seeking isolation. Or at least that's what I was told. Maybe I've been listening to the wrong jews?

And sorry Lord Snow, that's not much to offer- how exactly is that different from surrender or die?. A decision made at the point of a sword with terms dictated by the person holding it isn't going to be a rational one. And no, this doesn't mean that it's okay when the Palastinians do it either, before anyone gets started. Extreme elements on each side seem to have the podium, stage, microphone AND loudspeaker; all moderation has been lost and will not be found again until the dust clears unless something truly, truly horrid occurs.


Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
Of course, Israel has also been unwilling to actually return to the '67 borders or allow Palestinians anything like a sovereign state. None of the times the Palestinians have been asked to give up the right of return, and recognize Israel in a truce that promises an end to violence has anything like that been on the table.

Just like the Palestinians, Israel is iirrationally unwilling to be moved about certain crucial subject. Just like I said that Palestinians will have to give up the right of return and the desire to destroy Israel, Israel would have to give back lands (all the non-religious, non crazy political parties in Israel agree to the 1967 borders) and destroy all the illegal settlements.

As I said, this scenario is unlikely, but it's the most reasonable middle ground that can be achieved. The problem is that in both sides of the conflict, fanatics are preventing this from happening.

Semi ninjaed...

I have not heard of a single jew who wanted to move back to 1967 borders, and I know a fair number of jews. Maybe this is part of the divide between israelis and american born jews that I fear is becoming wider?

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f@&#ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.


ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics

Whats the definition of a terror tactic?

Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.

When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics

Whats the definition of a terror tactic?

Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.

When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics
Whats the definition of a terror tactic?
Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.
When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

Or, just as an example, dropping bombs and missiles on inhabited cities.

But it's okay as long as you carefully explain that you're really trying not to kill civilians. And your thorough, but classified, internal investigation shows that you were justified.
(Note that this applies to the US in many cases as well as Israel, and many other countries military operations.)

Sometimes I think the only difference between Hamas and the IDF is that Hamas is more honest.


ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics

Whats the definition of a terror tactic?

Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.

When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

but the kid that was burned to death was considered an act of murder to be pursued by police, not a terror tactic to be dealt with militarily, like the kids whose bodies were found. Where is the line drawn?


Lord Snow wrote:
Well, Israel does care and I know that for a fact. The thought of economic, academic and cultural isolation terrifies the people here - it's evident by the way the media goes bananas whenever some farmer in south America refuses to buy Israeli tomatoes, or some dreary professor would not attend a convention in Israel. Any such event gets twice the press and reaction as any attack Hamas can usually make.

But does it translate into policy changes? Broad ones over a long period of time.

Quote:
And I'm not counting on the U.S exerting pressure, that's unlikely. In Europe, however, the winds are blowing in that direction.

I don't see what Europe could feasibly do that would be worse from Israels point of view than the 67 borders.

Quote:
They have a couple of very valuable trading chips - giving up the right of return, and recognizing Israel in a truce that promises an end to violence.

a truce that would be broken before the ink was dry and a promise not worth the paper its written on. The palastinian government has no means of stopping the rockets. The second one government becomes for peace it splinters off to another group that isn't.

Quote:

The price Israel is paying to maintain control on the Palestinians is huge - casualties, the animosity of the entire Arabic world and much of the Islamic and western worlds, billions of dollars every year, the need for mandatory service in the army.

... and on top of all these pragmatic things, Israel is paying with it's soul. There is a saying in Israel that roughly translates as "the conquest corrupts us", and it's true

I'm reminded of a quote about slavery's effects on the slave owner being almost as bad as the effects of a slave (must have been a white guy, but yes, they are pretty bad)

Quote:
Israel has a very clear motivation to reach an agreement with Palestinians. When asked, most Israelis say they support a two-nations solution. The only ones actually interested in perpetuating it are the religious, who want to unify the lands promised to the Jews by their God, according to that Book. The rest of us would really rather the madness stopped.

And the military, who find the 67 border indefeasible.

Quote:
They have so far been unwilling to give up either, which is part of the reason that a diplomatic solution without outside intervention is very unlikely. However, that's very different from having nothing to offer.

It is kind of rough telling people they have to stay in the palastinian areas. You wouldn't want to stay there either. It doesn't help that the biggest barrier to the right of return is maintaining a racist government: there are plenty of Palestinians already in Israel who aren't blowing things up, but if people had a right of return they'd quickly make jews a minority in israel.


Freehold DM wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics
Whats the definition of a terror tactic?
Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.
When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

but the kid that was burned to death was considered an act of murder to be pursued by police, not a terror tactic to be dealt with militarily, like the kids whose bodies were found. Where is the line drawn?

And the 2 kids who were shot dead by IDF in May don't get anything beyond an internal investigation. Not even any real media coverage.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

BTW, I've got that shirt and it's got me some odd reactions from time to time.

The best (worst?) was down in Appalachia when someone said "I wish we had some of those guys down on the border now."

I think he missed the point.


Shadowcat wrote:


Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

I would suggest a higher point to snark ratio. As it stands, one could just as reasonably apply the terrorist label to Israels practices. Israel has a number of peaceful demonstrators held in indefinite detention and as cited above is inflicting a large number of civilian casualties per Hamas operative.


Can Hamas / Palestine stop the rocket attacks?

A qualified Yes - After the Pillar of Cloud ceasefire the rockets dwindled to less than 10 a month for over a year.

Why doesn't Hamas want an Egyptian brokered ceasefire?

Because Egypt's goverment has changed to being pro-Israel and after their internal crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood - Egypt are no longer a 'neutral' party.

Qatar is a possible alternative, but Israel would obviously clearly prefer to mediate through Egypt.


It's worth noting that Egypt itself is dealing with a militant insurgency in the Sinai. The militant Islamists there have 'close ties' to similar groups in Gaza.

The Exchange

Quote:

I honestly thought Israel was seeking isolation. Or at least that's what I was told. Maybe I've been listening to the wrong jews?

+

I have not heard of a single jew who wanted to move back to 1967 borders, and I know a fair number of jews. Maybe this is part of the divide between israelis and american born jews that I fear is becoming wider?

It appears as if you are mostly familiar with American Jews. Well, it's easier to be all militaristic and nationalistic from far away, I suppose. Here in Israel, a return to the 67 borders (or some similar version of them that better allows Gaza and the western strip to be connected) is understood to be a crucial part of any peaceful, two state solution. There are many supporters, but regretfully the other political camp - the religious and right wing - are unwilling to give back any territory, and of the two groups, they are the ones with more zeal, so they get what they want. Leftists in Israel are more concerned with critiquing themselves and each other, complaining, or (like me) just despairing of it all and wanting to leave the damn place to destroy itself without them.

Quote:


Why doesn't Hamas want an Egyptian brokered ceasefire?

Because Egypt's government has changed to being pro-Israel and after their internal crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood - Egypt are no longer a 'neutral' party.

Qatar is a possible alternative, but Israel would obviously clearly prefer to mediate through Egypt.

I think it's more correct to say that Egypt is anti Hamas (due to their political need of alienating the Muslim Brotherhood, parent organization of Hamas that won the first elections after Mubarak's fall) than that it is pro Israel.

Also, Qatar is not exactly a neutral party either, considering Israelis are not even allowed to cross it's borders...

The Exchange

Quote:
I don't see what Europe could feasibly do that would be worse from Israels point of view than the 67 borders.

Israel *really* wants to be in the EU - we play in their sport events, we study their cultures and languages in school and universities (seriously, most public schools have a much better French teaching program than Arabic. That's just complete nonsense given that we live in the middle east). I'd say about half of the Israeli population are descendants of Europeans who fled to Israel during world war 2 or it's aftermath. The sad reality is that the Europeans (the whites) are the ruling cast and dominant most of the middle and higher soci-economic classes. So scorn from Europe is felt strongly on almost all of those who are in positions of power.

And what can they do? an economic embargo lead by Europe (where we ship most of our export) could have a devastating effect. Look to Iran for an example - they just completely collapsed (they were under more pressure than Europe alone can land, but they are also naturally much wealthier given their oil).
Even worse than simply refusing to trade with us, they can refuse to work with us on research and technology. Israel is known as an international powerhouse in those areas, but a LOT of that is due to American and European money and help - brilliant as our scientists and developers and engineers may be (I know some of them, and they are truly brilliant), they need money to operate their labs. They need their articles to be published in scientific magazines. If Europe denies Israel it's ability to be effective at high tech, a huge edge is lost economically.

Surveys show that whenever Hamas attacks Israel, the popularity of right wing politicians and political parties grows considerably. When news of some high-tech company most people never heard of declaring it will not trade with Israel any more because of the Palestine occupation, however, surveys show an all time low of support for right wing politics. People understand the risk of isolation and want to avoid it. If Europe manages to make Israelis feel like the world has turned it's back on them because of the occupation, maybe something could start changing. It's a hell of a lot of a better chance than what Hamas has, from what I can see.


I take your point on the Anti-Hamas... but that only reinforces why they shouldn't be negotiating a peace treaty, as they are politically and emotively involved.

Qatar's only real benefit is that of distance, in that it doesn't share a border with Israel / Palestine. That and that it does have good ties with both the Arab world and the US (who have a military base there).

Note: I'd quip that Palestinians aren't generally allowed to cross Israel's borders either... but that would be in poor taste.

On the topic of right wing / left wing politics - the Knesset is controlled currently by a coalition: Likud (20), Yesh Atid (19), The Jewish Home (12), Yisrael Beiteinu (11), Hatnuah (6).

Within that (based solely on wiki - so able to be enlightened) I think Likud, Jewish Home and Yesh Atid are all strongly pro-settlement.


Lord Snow wrote:
Here in Israel, a return to the 67 borders (or some similar version of them that better allows Gaza and the western strip to be connected) is understood to be a crucial part of any peaceful, two state solution. There are many supporters, but regretfully the other political camp - the religious and right wing - are unwilling to give back any territory, and of the two groups, they are the ones with more zeal, so they get what they want.

What does zeal have to do with democracy? If there are more people who want a peaceful two-state solution, as you seem to indicate, why is that not the official policy of Israel if you have the votes for it?

The Exchange

Quote:
What does zeal have to do with democracy? If there are more people who want a peaceful two-state solution, as you seem to indicate, why is that not the official policy of Israel if you have the votes for it?

Never heard of a smaller number of group using the inherent weakness of democracy to get what they want? It's simply a matter of the leftists around here being "weaker" - they refuse to unite behind a single leader or a small group of leaders, because each of them has their own ideas about how certain things should be done, and thus finds themselves in disagreement with some of the leaders, which creates a fractured faction. "Well I wouldn't work with HER because of that thing she said once about Russians!". While leftists are busy doing that, the religious go to a rabbi, ask him what to do, he tells them, and they do it.

Apart from that, I don't know if there's an actual majority for peace. Only a very large group (I think a recent survey found that 45% of the people are willing to go back to the '67 borders, and transforming that number into a majority shouldn't be too hard).

Quote:
On the topic of right wing / left wing politics - the Knesset is controlled currently by a coalition: Likud (20), Yesh Atid (19), The Jewish Home (12), Yisrael Beiteinu (11), Hatnuah (6)

At least theoretically, Yesh Atid and Hatnua are opposed to the occupation, many in the Likud are willing to give it up in exchange of Hamas giving up the right of return and ceasing hostilities, and many in the opposition are in support of a two state solution based on the '67 borders.

Remember that just sitting in the coalition does not mean you actually support the settlements or want to perpetuate the current situation. Reach a peaceful agreement is next to impossible, and has been for the last four decades or so. A political party can't afford to sit in the opposition of every single government that doesn't work enough to solve the conflict, because there are other issues at hand - like the economy, the education system, attempting to stop the unification of church and state - that leftist parties want to be able to affect, and it's easier to do it from the coalition.

And the current coalition is VERY fractured. Yesh Atid and Israel Beiteinu are constantly at each other's throats, the former attempting to disband settlements and improve the life of Israelis to some degree, and the latter attempting to reign a new king in Israel old-testament style.

In short, politics is a bit more complicated than you tried to make it appear.

The Exchange

Quote:
Note: I'd quip that Palestinians aren't generally allowed to cross Israel's borders either... but that would be in poor taste.

And also aside from the point - Palestinians aren't allowed across Israel's borders mostly for security reasons (they used to be able to cross the border MUCH more easily before the Second Intifada), Israelis aren't allowed in Qatar out of principle. And, the point I made was that Qatar is not neutral in the conflict, as evident by them not having displomatic relations with Israel - and OF COURSE Israel is not neutral in the conflict, so the fact that they won't let Palestinians through the borders truly is irrelevant.


Lord Snow wrote:


And also aside from the point - Palestinians aren't allowed across Israel's borders mostly for security reasons

Its very much the point. They can't cross Israels borders, Israel makes sure they can't cross into egypts/Jordans borders, and israel has them carved up Into tiny, isolated units so they can't even cross their OWN borders.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


And also aside from the point - Palestinians aren't allowed across Israel's borders mostly for security reasons

Its very much the point. They can't cross Israels borders, Israel makes sure they can't cross into egypts/Jordans borders, and israel has them carved up Into tiny, isolated units so they can't even cross their OWN borders.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are fishing for an argument or something, because the other option is either that your reading skills are terrible, or that I'm really really bad at conveying what I mean.

The point to which the fact that Palestinians are not allowed to cross Israel's borders is irrelevant, is the question of Qatar's alleged neutrality - which I refuted using the fact that they won't even let any Israeli enter their country (not the greatest sign of neutrality). To which Mark Sweetman replied, and in his replay was a mention to the fact that Palestinians can't cross the Israeli border. To which I answered, "that's aside from the point".


stay safe Lord Snow:)


I hope Lord Snow doesn't mind if I threadjack to post something else Middle East-related, although at the opposite end.

Vice News series on an occupation I'd never even heard of.

Apparently, Noam Chomsky has said that the Arab Spring didn't start in Tunisia in 2010, but in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara a month prior.


Lord Snow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


And also aside from the point - Palestinians aren't allowed across Israel's borders mostly for security reasons

Its very much the point. They can't cross Israels borders, Israel makes sure they can't cross into egypts/Jordans borders, and israel has them carved up Into tiny, isolated units so they can't even cross their OWN borders.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are fishing for an argument or something, because the other option is either that your reading skills are terrible, or that I'm really really bad at conveying what I mean.

The point to which the fact that Palestinians are not allowed to cross Israel's borders is irrelevant, is the question of Qatar's alleged neutrality - which I refuted using the fact that they won't even let any Israeli enter their country (not the greatest sign of neutrality). To which Mark Sweetman replied, and in his replay was a mention to the fact that Palestinians can't cross the Israeli border. To which I answered, "that's aside from the point".

i dont thinl hes fishing for an argument, I think hes pointing out that the Palestinians are kinda physically, politically, and ideologically stuck, and immobility in one area whether as a result of internal or external forces, results kn immobility in other areas.


On Qatar and Israel - wiki states:
In 2010, Qatar twice offered to restore trade relations with Israel and allow the reinstatement of the Israeli mission in Doha, on condition that Israel allow Qatar to send building materials and money to Gaza to help rehabilitate infrastructure, and that Israel make a public statement expressing appreciation for Qatar's role and acknowledging its standing in the Middle East. Israel refused on the grounds that Qatari supplies could be used by Hamas to build bunkers and reinforced positions from which to fire rockets at Israeli cities and towns, and that Israel did not want to get involved in the competition between Qatar and Egypt over the Middle East mediation.

The Exchange

Quote:
i dont thinl hes fishing for an argument, I think hes pointing out that the Palestinians are kinda physically, politically, and ideologically stuck, and immobility in one area whether as a result of internal or external forces, results kn immobility in other areas.

But how does that relate to Qatar's alleged neutrality in the conflict? I must be missing something here.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I hope Lord Snow doesn't mind if I threadjack to post something else Middle East-related, although at the opposite end.

Vice News series on an occupation I'd never even heard of.

Apparently, Noam Chomsky has said that the Arab Spring didn't start in Tunisia in 2010, but in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara a month prior.

Hmm, interesting. However, I'm not sure it could legitimately be called part of the Arab Spring if most people haven't heard of it - which is how it seems. The Spring is about a protests against the dictatorships that ruled the Arab world, allegedly happening within a short period of time because the earlier ones caused the later ones. Should this be considered a part of it? I've heard no mention of it before.

The Exchange

Mark Sweetman wrote:

On Qatar and Israel - wiki states:

In 2010, Qatar twice offered to restore trade relations with Israel and allow the reinstatement of the Israeli mission in Doha, on condition that Israel allow Qatar to send building materials and money to Gaza to help rehabilitate infrastructure, and that Israel make a public statement expressing appreciation for Qatar's role and acknowledging its standing in the Middle East. Israel refused on the grounds that Qatari supplies could be used by Hamas to build bunkers and reinforced positions from which to fire rockets at Israeli cities and towns, and that Israel did not want to get involved in the competition between Qatar and Egypt over the Middle East mediation.

And, by the way, as the recent tunnel threat has shown, that was a legitimate concern. In some of the major tunnels the IDF dug up during the last few days there were hundreds of tons of concrete and construction material.


Lord Snow wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:

On Qatar and Israel - wiki states:

In 2010, Qatar twice offered to restore trade relations with Israel and allow the reinstatement of the Israeli mission in Doha, on condition that Israel allow Qatar to send building materials and money to Gaza to help rehabilitate infrastructure, and that Israel make a public statement expressing appreciation for Qatar's role and acknowledging its standing in the Middle East. Israel refused on the grounds that Qatari supplies could be used by Hamas to build bunkers and reinforced positions from which to fire rockets at Israeli cities and towns, and that Israel did not want to get involved in the competition between Qatar and Egypt over the Middle East mediation.
And, by the way, as the recent tunnel threat has shown, that was a legitimate concern. In some of the major tunnels the IDF dug up during the last few days there were hundreds of tons of concrete and construction material.

Of course it's a legitimate concern. OTOH, not allowing construction materials into an area that keeps being bombed has it's own problems.


No doubt it was for a vocational training program for electrial engineers.

I'm sure this was for studying orbital and escape velocities.

If neighboring countries really cared about the Palestinians, they would open their borders to refugees. But it's much better anti-Israeli propoganda to refuse to help refugees and instead blame Israel for the violence.

Furthermore, those calling for "peace" need to define what they mean. Because to Hamas, "peace" means the destruction of Israel. I'm no expert, but I would suspect that the average Israeli has a considerably different definition.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"We will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews."


Fine sound bites all, but they smack of jingoism and propaganda on the other on end.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:

No doubt it was for a vocational training program for electrial engineers.

I'm sure this was for studying orbital and escape velocities.

If neighboring countries really cared about the Palestinians, they would open their borders to refugees. But it's much better anti-Israeli propoganda to refuse to help refugees and instead blame Israel for the violence.

Furthermore, those calling for "peace" need to define what they mean. Because to Hamas, "peace" means the destruction of Israel. I'm no expert, but I would suspect that the average Israeli has a considerably different definition.

Yes, if the neighboring countries really cared about the Palestinians, they would help Israel ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank.

Has there ever been another war/occupation/whatever you want to call it, where that was the suggested solution for allies of the oppressed? Don't try to help them fight, just evacuate the country?


interesting


thejeff wrote:


Has there ever been another war/occupation/whatever you want to call it, where that was the suggested solution for allies of the oppressed? Don't try to help them fight, just evacuate the country?

It seems to me that lots of Iraqis went to neighboring countries as refugees.


Doug's Workshop wrote:
If neighboring countries really cared about the Palestinians, they would open their borders to refugees. But it's much better anti-Israeli propoganda to refuse to help refugees and instead blame Israel for the violence.

Note in this case that 'neighbouring countries' = Egypt... that's it. They are the only other country with a shared border with any Palestinian controlled territory. You'd think that Jordan would border Palestine... but Israel have claimed a strip of land that prevents that.


Mark Sweetman wrote:


Note in this case that 'neighbouring countries' = Egypt... that's it. They are the only other country with a shared border with any Palestinian controlled territory. You'd think that Jordan would border Palestine... but Israel have claimed a strip of land that prevents that.

And Jordan could still announce a policy of accepting refugees . . . but doesn't.


So then, where are they supposed to go, doug? They cant get to jordan through Israel even if such a policy was announced. They're kinda stuck,.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note: Jordan (population of 8 million) already has over 600 thousand refugees of the Syrian war, 2 million refugees from Palestine (descendants of the 1948 refugees), a whole lot of iraqi refugees (numbers aren't clear online).

How many are they meant to take? - is over a quarter of their population not enough already?


Freehold DM wrote:
So then, where are they supposed to go, doug?

I don't know, freehold. Maybe out of a war zone. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure not being used as a human shield is preferable option to studying next to a missile.

There'd be no point in Israel denying civilians the chance to leave.

But there's a better chance that the sun would start rising in the west than Muslim countries provide refugee charity to the Palestinians.


Doug's Workshop wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Has there ever been another war/occupation/whatever you want to call it, where that was the suggested solution for allies of the oppressed? Don't try to help them fight, just evacuate the country?
It seems to me that lots of Iraqis went to neighboring countries as refugees.

Different situation. And those refugees have been allowed back in, though they haven't all wanted to go yet. Which isn't the case with Palestinian refugees from decades ago. Israel won't let them return, not just to Israel, but even to the Territories.

Any refugees Egypt or Jordan or anyone else took would be permanent.

Ethnic cleansing.


Mark Sweetman wrote:

Note: Jordan (population of 8 million) already has over 600 thousand refugees of the Syrian war, 2 million refugees from Palestine (descendants of the 1948 refugees), a whole lot of iraqi refugees (numbers aren't clear online).

How many are they meant to take? - is over a quarter of their population not enough already?

As many as their big hearts can provide for.


thejeff wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Has there ever been another war/occupation/whatever you want to call it, where that was the suggested solution for allies of the oppressed? Don't try to help them fight, just evacuate the country?
It seems to me that lots of Iraqis went to neighboring countries as refugees.

Different situation. And those refugees have been allowed back in, though they haven't all wanted to go yet. Which isn't the case with Palestinian refugees from decades ago. Israel won't let them return, not just to Israel, but even to the Territories.

Any refugees Egypt or Jordan or anyone else took would be permanent.

Ethnic cleansing.

You wanted a situation, I gave you a situation.


Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
i dont thinl hes fishing for an argument, I think hes pointing out that the Palestinians are kinda physically, politically, and ideologically stuck, and immobility in one area whether as a result of internal or external forces, results kn immobility in other areas.
But how does that relate to Qatar's alleged neutrality in the conflict? I must be missing something here.

Israeli: Qatar? We can't have the talks in Qatar. i can't even legally enter the country

Palestinian: Welcome to my world!

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics
Whats the definition of a terror tactic?
Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.
When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

Or, just as an example, dropping bombs and missiles on inhabited cities.

But it's okay as long as you carefully explain that you're really trying not to kill civilians. And your thorough, but classified, internal investigation shows that you were justified.
(Note that this applies to the US in many cases as well as Israel, and many other countries military operations.)

Sometimes I think the only difference between Hamas and the IDF is that Hamas is more honest.

Hamas chose to make those cities targets. If you're launching missles at a foe from a building, that building is not a civilian target anymore.


ShadowcatX wrote:

Hamas chose to make those cities targets. If you're launching missles at a foe from a building, that building is not a civilian target anymore.

Israel is launching settlers that take their land from israel. Therefore israel isn't a civilian target anymore.

This logic is horrible. Launching a missile from granmas roof does not turn grandma into a legitimate target. The west bank is one of the most dreadfully overcrowded areas on the planet: there's nowhere to shoot from that ISN"T next to civilians.

And so far in this conflict Hamas has a better combatant to civilian ratio than Israel. (probably more to incompetence than will but still...)

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
i dont thinl hes fishing for an argument, I think hes pointing out that the Palestinians are kinda physically, politically, and ideologically stuck, and immobility in one area whether as a result of internal or external forces, results kn immobility in other areas.
But how does that relate to Qatar's alleged neutrality in the conflict? I must be missing something here.

Israeli: Qatar? We can't have the talks in Qatar. i can't even legally enter the country

Palestinian: Welcome to my world!

Ah. Then it doesn't have anything at all to do with Qatar's neutrality. Got it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Hamas chose to make those cities targets. If you're launching missles at a foe from a building, that building is not a civilian target anymore.

Israel is launching settlers that take their land from israel. Therefore israel isn't a civilian target anymore.

This logic is horrible. Launching a missile from granmas roof does not turn grandma into a legitimate target. The west bank is one of the most dreadfully overcrowded areas on the planet: there's nowhere to shoot from that ISN"T next to civilians.

And so far in this conflict Hamas has a better combatant to civilian ratio than Israel. (probably more to incompetence than will but still...)

Hamas (and by extension any Palestinian group) literally cannot fight against Israel in any way that falls under the normal laws of war. The power disparity is too for that. An attempt to do would result in the immediate destruction of amy such force, leaving only the less scrupulous militants alive. Their alternatives are to simply give up any armed resistance, die, or take up terrorism. That's the nature of asymetric warfare. Even if they managed to only attack Israeli military targets (which their rockets don't have the targetting ability to do.), they'd still have to do so from "behind human shields".

The Israeli military on the other hand, since they're operating from an area they control, that the enemy can't simply obliterate as soon as they find it, can do things like establish military bases away from civilians. They have the capability be more selective in their choice of targets.

If this wasn't true, I have no doubts that the remnants of the Israeli forces would behave the same way as Hamas. Hide among the civilian population. Attack soft targets of opportunity. Not because they're evil, but because those are only avenues left to them. Because it's what you do when your land is occupied and oppressed by a foreign power.

251 to 300 of 1,056 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Under fire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.