What really gets me about the Israel / Palestine thing

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Danny Ocean:

BULLSHIT


USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, India, Japan, S.Korea, and probably more.

They are not backed into a corner with no-where to go, they deliberately put themselves in that location. That was the whole point. There's plenty of places those individuals could migrate to, but they persist out of ideological conviction.

.
The only solution to stop anything resembling the Holocaust to ever happen again to the Jews would be to make their own state which was already guaranteed by the UK before WW2. The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.

Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany.

They had no other place to go to. The british denied many access to Palestine under the pretense of the white papers of '38 (and others before it) that limited Jewish immigration to stop anti-Jewish sentiments among the local Arabs. Nobody would take them after the war - these refugees with no property or wealth were just a burden. During the war tens of thousands died because nobody would dare take them into their countries. The USA had a commission check on the status of Jewish refugees after WW2 and recommended them to immigrate into Palestine - as a National home for the Jewish people. Israel is a place that will always welcome Jews no-matter the circumstance (well... there are some exceptions, particularly if you're an escaped convict on the run from one of Israel's allies).

I think that you're looking at this at a very wrong way. You think that the Jews didn't have to create the state of Israel and they could have just immigrated to Europe or the USA. Europe was in ruin. The Jews had lost their property and it was all seized from them. Many lived in the same conditions they lived in the concentration and death camps because the allies couldn't feed all of them properly or care for all of them. The war ended, but the suffering continued.

TheIronRuler:

.
I think he was talking about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4007251.stm

Do note that this is old - it refers to the PLO under Arafat.

Even though it's old dodgy dealings no doubt go on, but it still doesn't affect my point. That's why I crossed it all out as pointless.

TheIronRuler:

I think that you're looking at this at a very wrong way. You think that the Jews didn't have to create the state of Israel and they could have just immigrated to Europe or the USA. Europe was in ruin. The Jews had lost their property and it was all seized from them. Many lived in the same conditions they lived in the concentration and death camps because the allies couldn't feed all of them properly or care for all of them. The war ended, but the suffering continued.

See now this is a persuasive post. That is indeed what I thought, but I was viewing this in a vacuum. My thoughts about the foundation were wrong. Although I do still have a hangup about how the Jews in particular were given extra treatment over all the other penniless refugees, I can see why they were.

However, the persisting bit is the odd bit. Whether or not the old Jews stay out of conviction, why do the young ones stay? Is there a bit of a brain drain or what?

Danny Ocean:

Gorfias:
The Arab Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank have over a dozen countries they can go to as Arab Muslims. The Jews of Israel: No Other.

BULLSHIT


USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, India, Japan, S.Korea, and probably more.

They are not backed into a corner with no-where to go, they deliberately put themselves in that location. That was the whole point. There's plenty of places those individuals could migrate to, but they persist out of ideological conviction.

Are any of the nations you mentioned Jewish Nations? I doubt Jews have anything like this:

http://nosharia.wordpress.com/list-of-muslim-majority-countries-with-sectstategovernment/

Which was my stated point. There are Jews living in Iran itself these days. I would not trade shoes with such a Jew. A Muslim in Pakistan? Not so much a problem.

By the way, you sound like a proper demagogue-- Look at your rhetoric in the next paragraph!

If Jews are not going to be murdered and have the land they often purchased at 10 times its value, were born upon and developed, stolen from them, we need to side with them. They may all be dead men walking anyway, but I'd like to have sided with the angels.

Emphasis mine. Italics and bold highlight what's probably unintentional rhetoric fueled by your emotion, underlines represent what must have been conscious decisions. The red bit is just ridiculous.

wut, Gorfias? Does this mean Arab Muslims are Demons? Do you realize how this sounds? It's like you're in some kind of alternate reality!

If you don't redact, clarify, or justify that last bit of emotive language you'll end up looking absolutely fucking delusional.

The dead men walking part comes from Kissinger stating in 10 years there will be no Israel. No caveats. They're just screwed. I agree with him. As for being on the side of the angles, who would you rather side with: someone that is trying to stay alive where they were born, or the person attending a classroom that posts maps showing that previous person has no homeland but that your own has over-taken that land where that person was born? I'd call the guy trying to stay alive where he was born the angle in this case.

Gorfias:
I guess I don't understand all of this "international law" stuff. Hitler's genocide of the Jews was perfectly legal. Slavery was legal. Jim Crow was legal.

The holocaust was not legal-- loads of high-up Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes at the Nuremberg hearings.[/quote]

Which I think was an after the fact legal sham (but justice). They would not have been much different than Custer killing baby toting Indian ladies.

Slavery occurred at a time before international law even existed-- it only really became a thing after the first world war.

So, legal. Right?

Jim Crow was a domestic policy of some parts of the USA.

Arguably violated by the marches of Martin Luthor King (Saw it in a biopic on him).

Don't try and misrepresent it just because you disagree with how it's used to condemn Israel.

I disagree with someone writing, "Hey, I just found a law that says I get to murder you and take the land you were born upon for myself!". Don't you? An awful lot of what I'm reading sounds just like that and it is maddening. Can we agree, it is not OK to do things like that even if they are, "legal?"

It's not complicated. The clue is in the name. If the action takes place inter (between) nationally (states) it is subject to international law, not national (local) laws.

And if the law says, "hey, you're supposed to allow yourself to be murdered upon the land you were born upon and have your land stolen from you" I think it is OK for everyone to help the intended victim resist. It isn't complicated. Right and Wrong often are not.

itsthesheppy:

TheIronRuler:

itsthesheppy:
What really gets me about the conflict are the people suffering and dying over whose imaginary friend is more "real".

.
Tell that to the atheists on both sides.

I'm an Israeli and I'm an atheist. I still support my country. What do you have to say about tat?

What do I say about that? I say I'm sorry your country is a tango partner in a rocks-for-brains stupid tribal conflict borne out of religious stupidity that's been going on for hundreds of years, and which seems primed to continue for hundreds more, for as long as both sides think that a creator of the universe has them specially in mind, and cares about what tracts of land in some rocky landscape they live on.

.
Conflict didn't begin for hundreds of years... but it might continue for hundreds more, as long as Israel exists.
.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:
You said I was correct, if I recall.

I said you were correct on something else. With regard to this, I said that I had not made myself clear and you had consequently misunderstood. I don't actually think our differences were more than a few shades of grey.

The time the UN spends on Israel alone shows that a quarter of the world simply can't deal with Israel existing, that's why.

Most of the world has no problem with Israel existing. Bar a couple of exceptions (like Iran), even those largely hostile to Israel accept its existence as an irreversible fait accompli that is not going to be undone.

They have a problem with what they perceive as the immoral oppression of Palestinians and denial of their full independence.

.
Nein- Nein -Nein.
The acceptance of Israel existing came after the failure of '67. After the war you had this little gem-Khartoum Resolution. BTW, one of the reasons why the European nations (and the USA, Canda) became closer with Israel was this. Sorry, it was kinda off-topic.
Many of these countries still hold these ideas valid - "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.". Israel is recognized by 157 nations. About 35 countries don't recognize Israel. Many other Arab and Muslim countries have strained relationships with them, or cold relationships (no embassies, but yes to recognition).

Jordan and Egypt also denied the Palestinians their independence. Hell, there's Black September. This is a pretense to attack Israel on a different scene (not a military one).

Danny Ocean:

TheIronRuler:

.
I think he was talking about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4007251.stm

Do note that this is old - it refers to the PLO under Arafat.

Even though it's old dodgy dealings no doubt go on, but it still doesn't affect my point. That's why I crossed it all out as pointless.

TheIronRuler:

I think that you're looking at this at a very wrong way. You think that the Jews didn't have to create the state of Israel and they could have just immigrated to Europe or the USA. Europe was in ruin. The Jews had lost their property and it was all seized from them. Many lived in the same conditions they lived in the concentration and death camps because the allies couldn't feed all of them properly or care for all of them. The war ended, but the suffering continued.

See now this is a persuasive post. That is indeed what I thought, but I was viewing this in a vacuum. My thoughts about the foundation were wrong. Although I do still have a hangup about how the Jews in particular were given extra treatment over all the other penniless refugees, I can see why they were.

However, the persisting bit is the odd bit. Whether or not the old Jews stay out of conviction, why do the young ones stay? Is there a bit of a brain drain or what?

.
Our society is still scarred with the memories of the Holocaust. Often we equate the current threat of an Iranian bomb with the Holocaust because it touches the nerve of every single Israeli Jew. It's the tragedy of our nation, one that woke us up to the needs of a nation of our own. Those who stay here have many reasons. People like myself, secular (even atheists) that stay here do it either out of patriotism (military service can do that to you), their desire to live among Jews like themselves, their desire to live in a Jewish country... Some people just can't leave because they don't have the means to do so. The standard of living here isn't up to par with the one in the USA or most of the European countries, so moving there can be a dream some people have. There are people who leave Israel for other prospects, but it's not a widespread phenomenon.

For example, my parents lived their lives mostly detached from the Jewish religion. Living in the USSR can do that to you. However when they left they chose Israel - not the USA. Do you know why? Because of the feeling of otherness. That feeling of being an outsider my parents felt when they were living in modern-day Ukraine. You're not Ukranian, You're a Jew. You're not Russian, you're a Jew. Kids laugh at you, make fun of you in school because you're a Jew. Others look at you funny, or treat you like shit. Coming here, to the land of the Jews, a place when you are never an outsider, was a dream my parents achieved. Living in diaspora is an experience only a few nations experienced. It is horrible.

TheIronRuler:

itsthesheppy:

TheIronRuler:

.
Tell that to the atheists on both sides.

I'm an Israeli and I'm an atheist. I still support my country. What do you have to say about tat?

What do I say about that? I say I'm sorry your country is a tango partner in a rocks-for-brains stupid tribal conflict borne out of religious stupidity that's been going on for hundreds of years, and which seems primed to continue for hundreds more, for as long as both sides think that a creator of the universe has them specially in mind, and cares about what tracts of land in some rocky landscape they live on.

.
Conflict didn't begin for hundreds of years... but it might continue for hundreds more, as long as Israel exists.
.

There hasn't been religious and sectarian conflict in that region of the world for hundreds and thousands of years? News to me.

itsthesheppy:

TheIronRuler:

itsthesheppy:

What do I say about that? I say I'm sorry your country is a tango partner in a rocks-for-brains stupid tribal conflict borne out of religious stupidity that's been going on for hundreds of years, and which seems primed to continue for hundreds more, for as long as both sides think that a creator of the universe has them specially in mind, and cares about what tracts of land in some rocky landscape they live on.

.
Conflict didn't begin for hundreds of years... but it might continue for hundreds more, as long as Israel exists.
.

There hasn't been religious and sectarian conflict in that region of the world for hundreds and thousands of years? News to me.

.
There hasn't been such a conflict since the damn Ottomans came to power, and that's like 600 years. Between the crusades and Jewish-Muslim skirmishes you have a shitload of time passing where Palestine was just a land of sheep, oxen and olives.

TheIronRuler:

itsthesheppy:

TheIronRuler:

.
Conflict didn't begin for hundreds of years... but it might continue for hundreds more, as long as Israel exists.
.

There hasn't been religious and sectarian conflict in that region of the world for hundreds and thousands of years? News to me.

.
There hasn't been such a conflict since the damn Ottomans, and that's like 600 years. Between the crusades and Jewish-Muslim skirmishes you have a shitload of time passing where Palestine was just a land of sheep, oxen and olives.

Ah, so ignoring for the moment those centuries of genocide and wars and such, it's been a peaceful paradise of love and brotherhood? That the Jews and Muslims destroyed with their dumb-as-a-bag-of-broken-hammers tribal interfaith conflict? I'm not really sure how either scenario makes any party in this moron moshpit look any better.

itsthesheppy:

TheIronRuler:

itsthesheppy:

There hasn't been religious and sectarian conflict in that region of the world for hundreds and thousands of years? News to me.

.
There hasn't been such a conflict since the damn Ottomans, and that's like 600 years. Between the crusades and Jewish-Muslim skirmishes you have a shitload of time passing where Palestine was just a land of sheep, oxen and olives.

Ah, so ignoring for the moment those centuries of genocide and wars and such, it's been a peaceful paradise of love and brotherhood? That the Jews and Muslims destroyed with their dumb-as-a-bag-of-broken-hammers tribal interfaith conflict? I'm not really sure how either scenario makes any party in this moron moshpit look any better.

.
*sigh*
I... please don't aggravate me further.

After the failure of the Crusades, the region was mostly quiet, with the occasional revolt or massacre in the span of 6 centuries. That is what I wanted to correct in your assumptions. You seriously lack knowledge in the history of the area.

TheIronRuler:

itsthesheppy:

TheIronRuler:

.
There hasn't been such a conflict since the damn Ottomans, and that's like 600 years. Between the crusades and Jewish-Muslim skirmishes you have a shitload of time passing where Palestine was just a land of sheep, oxen and olives.

Ah, so ignoring for the moment those centuries of genocide and wars and such, it's been a peaceful paradise of love and brotherhood? That the Jews and Muslims destroyed with their dumb-as-a-bag-of-broken-hammers tribal interfaith conflict? I'm not really sure how either scenario makes any party in this moron moshpit look any better.

.
*sigh*
I... please don't aggravate me further.

After the failure of the Crusades, the region was mostly quiet, with the occasional revolt or massacre in the span of 6 centuries. That is what I wanted to correct in your assumptions. You seriously lack knowledge in the history of the area.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't taken a course in middle eastern history. Ask me what was going on in 1750 in Yemen. I have no clue. Maybe it was under Ottoman control? Beats me.

But I think the rather blase way you put it ("The occasional massacre") underscores my point. To say nothing of the fact that my original point stands. Whatever apologetics you happen to subscribe to, the current isreali/palestine conflict is borne from one central disagreement: one side thinks they have a magic book that is a real magic book about their real imaginary friend, and the other side has a different magic book about a slightly different imaginary friend.

Cue piles of dead bodies.

I'll accept my thirty lashes with a wet noodle for not being on the top of my middle eastern history. In terms of global stupidity, I don't think it really ranks up there with the murder and mayhem the parties of god are so talented at.

itsthesheppy:

TheIronRuler:

itsthesheppy:

Ah, so ignoring for the moment those centuries of genocide and wars and such, it's been a peaceful paradise of love and brotherhood? That the Jews and Muslims destroyed with their dumb-as-a-bag-of-broken-hammers tribal interfaith conflict? I'm not really sure how either scenario makes any party in this moron moshpit look any better.

.
*sigh*
I... please don't aggravate me further.

After the failure of the Crusades, the region was mostly quiet, with the occasional revolt or massacre in the span of 6 centuries. That is what I wanted to correct in your assumptions. You seriously lack knowledge in the history of the area.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't taken a course in middle eastern history. Ask me what was going on in 1750 in Yemen. I have no clue. Maybe it was under Ottoman control? Beats me.

But I think the rather blase way you put it ("The occasional massacre") underscores my point. To say nothing of the fact that my original point stands. Whatever apologetics you happen to subscribe to, the current isreali/palestine conflict is borne from one central disagreement: one side thinks they have a magic book that is a real magic book about their real imaginary friend, and the other side has a different magic book about a slightly different imaginary friend.

Cue piles of dead bodies.

I'll accept my thirty lashes with a wet noodle for not being on the top of my middle eastern history. In terms of global stupidity, I don't think it really ranks up there with the murder and mayhem the parties of god are so talented at.

.
You will be surprised to learn that the beginning of the Zionist movement featured Socialist, atheist Jews who believed in the need for a Jewish country for the new Jewish person. Israel itself was ruled by socialist parties up until the late '70s.

TheIronRuler:

Nein- Nein -Nein.
The acceptance of Israel existing came after the failure of '67. After the war you had this little gem-Khartoum Resolution. BTW, one of the reasons why the European nations (and the USA, Canda) became closer with Israel was this. Sorry, it was kinda off-topic.
Many of these countries still hold these ideas valid - "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.". Israel is recognized by 157 nations. About 35 countries don't recognize Israel. Many other Arab and Muslim countries have strained relationships with them, or cold relationships (no embassies, but yes to recognition).

Who cares about 1967? We're talking about now, lots has changed.

30-odd Muslim countries (plus the likes of North Korea and Cuba) is not most of the world - and by extension there are therefore an awful lot more countries voting for resolutions against Israel. Why? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way).

Most of those Muslim countries don't matter a damn to Israel and vice versa. As for "no peace, no recognition, no negotiations", this bears little relation whatsoever to is actually going on. Peace has existed for 4 decades, negotiations have been had two decades, and recognition has been offered (on the basis of a Palestinian state having existed).

Jordan and Egypt also denied the Palestinians their independence.

So what? The weakest excuse for misbehaviour is that someone else did it too.

This is a pretense to attack Israel on a different scene (not a military one).

What is? Granting the Palestinians a state? Voting non-binding UN resolutions against them? Other?

TheIronRuler:

RUINER ACTUAL:
Don't worry about fully understanding it. No one does and no one can. You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land. I just hope they don't drag the US into another war in the Middle East. I fully condemn both countries and peoples for what they've done, what they want to do, and what they will do. The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out, but the situation is so complex and convoluted, with multiple treaties and promises made by past generations that will drag us into a war like WWI did.

.
"You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land."
"The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out,"

Generalization, AHOY!
Just had to mention that you shouldn't generalize a whole people...or wish for their destruction.
.

You missed my second post on this subject about building a water park! Now that's the ideal solution. Then everyone (left) in the Middle East would have somewhere fun to cool down- an oasis in the desert! Then maybe they won't all be so angry.

But seriously, could you explain to me how the Palestinians wouldn't be pissed off? Like if you were living somewhere, and the family who lived there years ago suddenly came back and called dibs. Not that I'm showing support for the Palestinians, as they're governed by a group who's objective is to wipe out the Jews. Like if your next-door neighbors soul purpose in life was to kill you.

I know what's going on over there. I just think it's so idiotic, due in part that it's based on ancient books, stories, and rules, that I don't think either side should win, and that it should be solved without international influence. Fix your own problems without dragging US into it.

RUINER ACTUAL:

TheIronRuler:

RUINER ACTUAL:
Don't worry about fully understanding it. No one does and no one can. You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land. I just hope they don't drag the US into another war in the Middle East. I fully condemn both countries and peoples for what they've done, what they want to do, and what they will do. The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out, but the situation is so complex and convoluted, with multiple treaties and promises made by past generations that will drag us into a war like WWI did.

.
"You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land."
"The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out,"

Generalization, AHOY!
Just had to mention that you shouldn't generalize a whole people...or wish for their destruction.
.

You missed my second post on this subject about building a water park! Now that's the ideal solution. Then everyone (left) in the Middle East would have somewhere fun to cool down- an oasis in the desert! Then maybe they won't all be so angry.

But seriously, could you explain to me how the Palestinians wouldn't be pissed off? Like if you were living somewhere, and the family who lived there years ago suddenly came back and called dibs. Not that I'm showing support for the Palestinians, as they're governed by a group who's objective is to wipe out the Jews. Like if your next-door neighbors soul purpose in life was to kill you.

I know what's going on over there. I just think it's so idiotic, due in part that it's based on ancient books, stories, and rules, that I don't think either side should win, and that it should be solved without international influence. Fix your own problems without dragging US into it.

.
If you're drawing comparisons, I can try to correct that oversimplified idea:
A family is living in a house that they're renting. A family who used to live there a long time ago is kicked out of the last place they lived in. They buy the house from the person renting the house out to the other family, and when they come into the house the local family who had been paying rent and living in that house for centuries is upset because it feels that this land belongs to them. So... LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!
At the end the family that wants to move into the house they bought gets attacked by the previous attendents. Their neighbors who own their houses come in and help them get the new family out, because they're of a different religion and they don't want them in their neighborhood. The new family fights back and defeats the family that lives in their house, but they also defeat the families that lived in the neighboring houses and sent them away. Then a bunch of the new family's family members come in and settle in these new empty houses while those who owned these houses are stuck in a tent outside of their neighborhood waiting for their landlord to come in and kick the new attendants back. Problem is... They failed. Multiple times. During that failure those owning the houses capture the area on which the tents were made. They offer the people living in the tents to join in their neighborhood, but they refuse because they believe they stole their land all that time ago. So now the people living in tents go out of their way to attack those who live in the houses on the other neighborhood via stabbings, suicide bombings, shooting incidents... Now the neighboring cities see this problem and try to stop the fighting. Some say that the new attendants stole those territories away from the original locals, while others say that what was done was done, and now an official border needs to be made between the two neighborhoods and separate them into two cities. However during that time, those who lived in houses started building more houses on the fringes of the land territories of the people living in the tents. This forms a problem because the border that was there before those living in tents were conquered now have changed because the new people have built houses on the other side, thus moving the border. Those living in tents say that the land is theirs, while those living in houses outside of their older border say that it belonged to no one so they just built a house there.
There is also the issue of a house that used to be divided among the two, and inside were a bunch of old photos and letters belonging to the new people in the houses. After they won it back they claimed it as their own, but the people living in tents disagreed and demanded that half of a house back.
Those living in tents also want the people who left their houses to return to their houses, even though they are long gone and those pertaining to be kicked out are actually their descendants, and not the people who used to own that piece of land.

Phew, I'm done.

TheIronRuler:

RUINER ACTUAL:

TheIronRuler:

.
"You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land."
"The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out,"

Generalization, AHOY!
Just had to mention that you shouldn't generalize a whole people...or wish for their destruction.
.

You missed my second post on this subject about building a water park! Now that's the ideal solution. Then everyone (left) in the Middle East would have somewhere fun to cool down- an oasis in the desert! Then maybe they won't all be so angry.

But seriously, could you explain to me how the Palestinians wouldn't be pissed off? Like if you were living somewhere, and the family who lived there years ago suddenly came back and called dibs. Not that I'm showing support for the Palestinians, as they're governed by a group who's objective is to wipe out the Jews. Like if your next-door neighbors soul purpose in life was to kill you.

I know what's going on over there. I just think it's so idiotic, due in part that it's based on ancient books, stories, and rules, that I don't think either side should win, and that it should be solved without international influence. Fix your own problems without dragging US into it.

.
If you're drawing comparisons, I can try to correct that oversimplified idea:
A family is living in a house that they're renting. A family who used to live there a long time ago is kicked out of the last place they lived in. They buy the house from the person renting the house out to the other family, and when they come into the house the local family who had been paying rent and living in that house for centuries is upset because it feels that this land belongs to them. So... LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!
At the end the family that wants to move into the house they bought gets attacked by the previous attendents. Their neighbors who own their houses come in and help them get the new family out, because they're of a different religion and they don't want them in their neighborhood. The new family fights back and defeats the family that lives in their house, but they also defeat the families that lived in the neighboring houses and sent them away. Then a bunch of the new family's family members come in and settle in these new empty houses while those who owned these houses are stuck in a tent outside of their neighborhood waiting for their landlord to come in and kick the new attendants back. Problem is... They failed. Multiple times. During that failure those owning the houses capture the area on which the tents were made. They offer the people living in the tents to join in their neighborhood, but they refuse because they believe they stole their land all that time ago. So now the people living in tents go out of their way to attack those who live in the houses on the other neighborhood via stabbings, suicide bombings, shooting incidents... Now the neighboring cities see this problem and try to stop the fighting. Some say that the new attendants stole those territories away from the original locals, while others say that what was done was done, and now an official border needs to be made between the two neighborhoods and separate them into two cities. However during that time, those who lived in houses started building more houses on the fringes of the land territories of the people living in the tents. This forms a problem because the border that was there before those living in tents were conquered now have changed because the new people have built houses on the other side, thus moving the border. Those living in tents say that the land is theirs, while those living in houses outside of their older border say that it belonged to no one so they just built a house there.
There is also the issue of a house that used to be divided among the two, and inside were a bunch of old photos and letters belonging to the new people in the houses. After they won it back they claimed it as their own, but the people living in tents disagreed and demanded that half of a house back.
Those living in tents also want the people who left their houses to return to their houses, even though they are long gone and those pertaining to be kicked out are actually their descendants, and not the people who used to own that piece of land.

Phew, I'm done.

Wow. That's an amazing explanation. Better than anything you'll get on CNN. I read through it once, will do more. You have to admit that's still pretty convoluted though. I need to extrapolate the information from this analogy and apply it to the history, to Wikipedia!

TheIronRuler:

Danny Ocean:

TheIronRuler:

.
I think he was talking about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4007251.stm

Do note that this is old - it refers to the PLO under Arafat.

Even though it's old dodgy dealings no doubt go on, but it still doesn't affect my point. That's why I crossed it all out as pointless.

TheIronRuler:

I think that you're looking at this at a very wrong way. You think that the Jews didn't have to create the state of Israel and they could have just immigrated to Europe or the USA. Europe was in ruin. The Jews had lost their property and it was all seized from them. Many lived in the same conditions they lived in the concentration and death camps because the allies couldn't feed all of them properly or care for all of them. The war ended, but the suffering continued.

See now this is a persuasive post. That is indeed what I thought, but I was viewing this in a vacuum. My thoughts about the foundation were wrong. Although I do still have a hangup about how the Jews in particular were given extra treatment over all the other penniless refugees, I can see why they were.

However, the persisting bit is the odd bit. Whether or not the old Jews stay out of conviction, why do the young ones stay? Is there a bit of a brain drain or what?

.
Our society is still scarred with the memories of the Holocaust. Often we equate the current threat of an Iranian bomb with the Holocaust because it touches the nerve of every single Israeli Jew. It's the tragedy of our nation, one that woke us up to the needs of a nation of our own. Those who stay here have many reasons. People like myself, secular (even atheists) that stay here do it either out of patriotism (military service can do that to you), their desire to live among Jews like themselves, their desire to live in a Jewish country... Some people just can't leave because they don't have the means to do so. The standard of living here isn't up to par with the one in the USA or most of the European countries, so moving there can be a dream some people have. There are people who leave Israel for other prospects, but it's not a widespread phenomenon.

For example, my parents lived their lives mostly detached from the Jewish religion. Living in the USSR can do that to you. However when they left they chose Israel - not the USA. Do you know why? Because of the feeling of otherness. That feeling of being an outsider my parents felt when they were living in modern-day Ukraine. You're not Ukranian, You're a Jew. You're not Russian, you're a Jew. Kids laugh at you, make fun of you in school because you're a Jew. Others look at you funny, or treat you like shit. Coming here, to the land of the Jews, a place when you are never an outsider, was a dream my parents achieved. Living in diaspora is an experience only a few nations experienced. It is horrible.

I'm also Jewish, also born in the USSR. I also heard these stories from my folks--though they ended up moving to the US (where I currently live). But, man, that doesn't mean you get to just have a place where you feel all nice and warm. Furthermore, that doesn't mean you should be complicit in the frankly disgusting acts committed by your state. This latest massacre in Gaza was clearly a product of partisan Israeli politics, not an attempt to garner further security. Does that not trouble you? Yes, it sucks that you have to be subject to missile attacks every once in a while. But under the international definition of occupation, and, indeed, under and reasonable definition of that word, Gaza (and to some extent, the West Bank), are occupied. Under international law, occupied people have a right to resist, even by force. What else are they to do? There can't be peace until this issue is addressed.

Also, if you simply believe in the righteousness of your own people, why not have Israel extent a genuine, acceptable offer of peace that includes reparations and a right of return? Jews who make arguments similar to yours are, in my opinion, having a lot of trouble dealing with the fact that they are POWERFUL. They are AGGRESSORS. At least at this time and in this context. As your former speaker of the Knesset argued, you can't be held down by the memory of the Holocaust, recent as it was. That memory has lead to abject cruelty toward innocent children, it has led to the creation what is essentially an open air prison with one of the highest population densities in the world.

I'm unsure about the validity of an explicitly racist state--Israel or any of the other ones on the planet. On the one hand, I understand your argument. On the other hand, it's hard to justify a state premised on preferential treatment for a specific group of people, and one that isn't even necessarily in the demographic majority in that part of the world. But if you're interested in maintaining a peaceful, legitimate, democratic state of Israel, you should be doing everything you can to curtail the expanding apartheid programs that are only destined to bring Israel down.

Its probably worth mentioning that I was not providing my own view-point on this in my earlier post - it was just an attempt to recreate the attitudes of the pro-Palestinian crowd. My point is that, to the Palestinians, they see this as a struggle against an invader who is backed by a powerful nation.

Should have made that clear early on. My perspective on the issue goes like this (and you may still not agree):

British occupy a territory (Palestine) and are asked to give it up and allow two seperate states to be created - 1 Arab and one Israelli. The UN resolution is never fully adopted and sparks an invasion (if you sympathise with Palestine) or an exodus (if you sympathise with Israel). I really don't sympathis with either of them too much. One thing about the Palestinian people is they also descended from the Jews in the land (as well as the Greeks/Romans/Arabs and other groups that occupied the area) and therefore should have equal claim to it if being the original people is the basis of the Israeli claim. After all the modern Jews are also intermixed with European and Arab peoples - they just retained their strict cultural and/or religious identity. I have no issues with the Jews returning to their ancestral home if they wish but to have it done at the expense of those already living there (with a more valid claim on it imo) is the problem. Will it ever be resolved? No idea. Even if the majory of both sides would like a peaceful resolution and for the fighting to stop; there are enough people who won't accept anything less than their group taking control of the entire region.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

Nein- Nein -Nein.
The acceptance of Israel existing came after the failure of '67. After the war you had this little gem-Khartoum Resolution. BTW, one of the reasons why the European nations (and the USA, Canda) became closer with Israel was this. Sorry, it was kinda off-topic.
Many of these countries still hold these ideas valid - "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.". Israel is recognized by 157 nations. About 35 countries don't recognize Israel. Many other Arab and Muslim countries have strained relationships with them, or cold relationships (no embassies, but yes to recognition).

Who cares about 1967? We're talking about now, lots has changed.

30-odd Muslim countries (plus the likes of North Korea and Cuba) is not most of the world - and by extension there are therefore an awful lot more countries voting for resolutions against Israel. Why? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way).

Most of those Muslim countries don't matter a damn to Israel and vice versa. As for "no peace, no recognition, no negotiations", this bears little relation whatsoever to is actually going on. Peace has existed for 4 decades, negotiations have been had two decades, and recognition has been offered (on the basis of a Palestinian state having existed).

Jordan and Egypt also denied the Palestinians their independence.

So what? The weakest excuse for misbehaviour is that someone else did it too.

This is a pretense to attack Israel on a different scene (not a military one).

What is? Granting the Palestinians a state? Voting non-binding UN resolutions against them? Other?

.
Do you think that the neighboring nations want a Palestinian state?

"this bears little relation whatsoever to is actually going on. Peace has existed for 4 decades, negotiations have been had two decades, and recognition has been offered (on the basis of a Palestinian state having existed)." - What the hell are you talking about? That's wrong.

"So what? The weakest excuse for misbehaviour is that someone else did it too." - I am saying that these nations demand Palestine 'independence' (with their conditions such as the '49 armistice borders, east Jerusalem as its capital, etc.) now because it will weaken Israel.
.

ratzofftoya:

TheIronRuler:

Danny Ocean:

Even though it's old dodgy dealings no doubt go on, but it still doesn't affect my point. That's why I crossed it all out as pointless.

See now this is a persuasive post. That is indeed what I thought, but I was viewing this in a vacuum. My thoughts about the foundation were wrong. Although I do still have a hangup about how the Jews in particular were given extra treatment over all the other penniless refugees, I can see why they were.

However, the persisting bit is the odd bit. Whether or not the old Jews stay out of conviction, why do the young ones stay? Is there a bit of a brain drain or what?

.
Our society is still scarred with the memories of the Holocaust. Often we equate the current threat of an Iranian bomb with the Holocaust because it touches the nerve of every single Israeli Jew. It's the tragedy of our nation, one that woke us up to the needs of a nation of our own. Those who stay here have many reasons. People like myself, secular (even atheists) that stay here do it either out of patriotism (military service can do that to you), their desire to live among Jews like themselves, their desire to live in a Jewish country... Some people just can't leave because they don't have the means to do so. The standard of living here isn't up to par with the one in the USA or most of the European countries, so moving there can be a dream some people have. There are people who leave Israel for other prospects, but it's not a widespread phenomenon.

For example, my parents lived their lives mostly detached from the Jewish religion. Living in the USSR can do that to you. However when they left they chose Israel - not the USA. Do you know why? Because of the feeling of otherness. That feeling of being an outsider my parents felt when they were living in modern-day Ukraine. You're not Ukranian, You're a Jew. You're not Russian, you're a Jew. Kids laugh at you, make fun of you in school because you're a Jew. Others look at you funny, or treat you like shit. Coming here, to the land of the Jews, a place when you are never an outsider, was a dream my parents achieved. Living in diaspora is an experience only a few nations experienced. It is horrible.

I'm also Jewish, also born in the USSR. I also heard these stories from my folks--though they ended up moving to the US (where I currently live). But, man, that doesn't mean you get to just have a place where you feel all nice and warm. Furthermore, that doesn't mean you should be complicit in the frankly disgusting acts committed by your state. This latest massacre in Gaza was clearly a product of partisan Israeli politics, not an attempt to garner further security. Does that not trouble you? Yes, it sucks that you have to be subject to missile attacks every once in a while. But under the international definition of occupation, and, indeed, under and reasonable definition of that word, Gaza (and to some extent, the West Bank), are occupied. Under international law, occupied people have a right to resist, even by force. What else are they to do? There can't be peace until this issue is addressed.

Also, if you simply believe in the righteousness of your own people, why not have Israel extent a genuine, acceptable offer of peace that includes reparations and a right of return? Jews who make arguments similar to yours are, in my opinion, having a lot of trouble dealing with the fact that they are POWERFUL. They are AGGRESSORS. At least at this time and in this context. As your former speaker of the Knesset argued, you can't be held down by the memory of the Holocaust, recent as it was. That memory has lead to abject cruelty toward innocent children, it has led to the creation what is essentially an open air prison with one of the highest population densities in the world.

I'm unsure about the validity of an explicitly racist state--Israel or any of the other ones on the planet. On the one hand, I understand your argument. On the other hand, it's hard to justify a state premised on preferential treatment for a specific group of people, and one that isn't even necessarily in the demographic majority in that part of the world. But if you're interested in maintaining a peaceful, legitimate, democratic state of Israel, you should be doing everything you can to curtail the expanding apartheid programs that are only destined to bring Israel down.

.
"Furthermore, that doesn't mean you should be complicit in the frankly disgusting acts committed by your state." - Woo, the discussion had begun.

"This latest massacre in Gaza..." - Massacre in Gaza? Oh boy you have no idea what a massacre truly is, and if you think that way then you must be unfamiliar with the ways the IDF operates.

"...was clearly a product of partisan Israeli politics, not an attempt to garner further security." - No it wasn't. I'm saying this as a citizen and a person that knows the political landscape here. If the operation was supposed to help the Likud party dominate the next elections, then the operation was a failure. The PM alienated truly right wing nuts that wanted a ground invasion and also alienated liberals that didn't want the war to escalate (BTW that's like 2 thirds of his base). It didn't destroy him, but it cost him with lots of votes. Furthermore, the PM had already made a step to secure his position as the head of state by combining forces with another nationalist right wing, (but strictly secular) party. This meant that he would remain the biggest party in the block, and only an extreme event could change that. The country, having suffered the second Intifada even after they thought signing the Oslo Accords was a step towards Peace was slapped in the face. For that, the public had moved much to the right of the map. The Labor party was fucked.
If you want I can discuss this issue further. That is, if you're interested in local politics, which you probably aren't.

"Does that not trouble you? Yes, it sucks that you have to be subject to missile attacks every once in a while." - It doesn't trouble me that my country retaliated to an organization that holds the Gaza Strip hostage and shoots rockets and mortars at my fellow citizens.

"But under the international definition of occupation, and, indeed, under and reasonable definition of that word, Gaza (and to some extent, the West Bank), are occupied. " - to the eyes of many Palestinians, all of Palestine is occupied and they will not rest until Israel is gone and all Jews are banished. This is why the symbol of the PLO features a full land of the mandate of Palestine. It was established in '64. They will not rest until all of Israel is gone, but at least now there's a big camp in Fatah that says the Palestinians should just take the '49 armistice borders and leave it at that, which is a step in the right direction. Gaza is not occupied, simple as that. The blockade on Gaza is perfectly legal as a country can close its borders to any other country if it so pleases. A country can control its borders, period. It can also impose an embargo on another country, and the naval blockade itself proves to be legal. The only problem that may arise here is the argument that this blockade is a punishment for all Palestinians living within Gaza, which I find preposterous. Sure, call the west bank occupied, as if there was any country Israel conquered it from. With the lose of the Jordanian claim to sovereignty, no country legally holds claims over that land. You might as well hold a piece of Antartica that wasn't claimed yet, trouble is that the place has actual people within it, and this is where the problems begin.

"Under international law, occupied people have a right to resist, even by force. What else are they to do? There can't be peace until this issue is addressed." - I think I've addressed this earlier, look one bit up.

"Also, if you simply believe in the righteousness of your own people, why not have Israel extent a genuine, acceptable offer of peace that includes reparations and a right of return?" - Reparations and a right of Return? Israel needs to apologize for a war of defense? Israel needs to apologize it stopped others from destroying it? Why should any of those refugees, that hold a special status as a Palestinian refugee, not akin to any other refugee in the world, be able to return to Israel? It's not their country anymore. Had they were normal refugees they would have already integrated into other countries and lived their lives well, but the neighboring Arab nations naturally refused. They would end Israel, and give the refugees a place to return to. However that plan already failed.

"Jews who make arguments similar to yours are, in my opinion, having a lot of trouble dealing with the fact that they are POWERFUL. They are AGGRESSORS. At least at this time and in this context." - Right now? Against the Palestinians they are powerful, but how can you treat them? Soldiers are unable to respond to people throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at them because their commanders fear that the Palestinian cameras would document this event where a soldier defends his life by shooting at those who attacked them and use it as propaganda or a way to incriminate that soldier and the IDF. The IDF can't deal with this sort of a problem. An army isn't supposed to deal with a violent population.

"your former speaker of the Knesset argued, you can't be held down by the memory of the Holocaust, recent as it was." - What are you talking about? "

"That memory has lead to abject cruelty toward innocent children, it has led to the creation what is essentially an open air prison with one of the highest population densities in the world" - Ah, the children! The Gaza strip was a result of the '47-'49 war. A local Palestinian administration was made in '48 during the war with Israel. After the war, Egypt took control of the area and treated the local Palestinian administration as a mere puppet. It was in place to stop Jordan from exerting influence over the area, as it had already taken the west bank for itself. Egypt denied the people living in Gaza Egyptian citizenship. In '59, the then president Nassar dissolved the administration and then directly controlled the Gaza strip - not as a part of Egypt, but as a controlled territory and administered it through a military governor. Egypt denied those in the Gaza strip freedom of movement and did not allow them to leave for Egypt where they could find a better life, as the growing number of people in the area made life much harder. Jobs were scarce and overall the standard of living dropped significantly. After 1967, the Israeli military was the one that administered the area. Following the '79 peace with Egypt, they did not address Gaza at all - but Egypt did relinquish all claims across its border with Israel. Therefore it was not Israel that created this "open air prison", but it was Egypt and Israel inherited this pain in the ass from them.

"But if you're interested in maintaining a peaceful, legitimate, democratic state of Israel, you should be doing everything you can to curtail the expanding apartheid programs that are only destined to bring Israel down." - Woo, now we've dropped the Apartheid word into the discussion. Great... Do you realize that the word was coined to address the South Africa situation? Since the people living outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders, without Israeli citizenship - but live under Israel's military administration, this does not apply. The instance where a minority holds control over a government and uses violence, intimidation and terror to oppress the majority living in that country for their benefit (woo slavery) does not hold water in the case of Israel.

"I'm unsure about the validity of an explicitly racist state--Israel or any of the other ones on the planet. On the one hand, I understand your argument. On the other hand, it's hard to justify a state premised on preferential treatment for a specific group of people, and one that isn't even necessarily in the demographic majority in that part of the world. " - Is it that hard for a person to understand the idea behind giving a land to a people to govern themselves under? If that land is overrun with other people, then how will it stay the people's land? (This gives off bad vibes, kinda reminds me of the Parsley massacre.)

Danny Ocean:
Can you go a single discussion about this without being belligerent in conversation?

That was sarcasm. I was ridiculing the fact that Fatah can't be taken seriously, since they don't even control their own people, and never keeps their word, plus that they're so heavily corrupt they can't offer the Palestinians much in terms of a future.

That's always been the problem in this conflict: Palestinian factions are either anti-peace or powerfless.

Danny Ocean:

BULLSHIT


USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, India, Japan, S.Korea, and probably more.

They are not backed into a corner with no-where to go, they deliberately put themselves in that location. That was the whole point. There's plenty of places those individuals could migrate to, but they persist out of ideological conviction.

The Palestinians can also go to those same places, so how exactly is that relevant? The only way you could use that is by arbitrarily assigned land rights based purely on ethnicity.
You don't want to go there, obviously.

Not only that, but to claim 'they could also go elsewhere' means implicitly recognizing the Palestinian demand at the time of ethnic cleansing of Trans-jordan and an ethnically pure Arabic state.
Obviously such ridiculous goals can't be considered legit, so you can't claim Jewish inhabitants should've just left because the Arabs happened to be in a phase with a rather racist political ideology.

itsthesheppy:
What really gets me about the conflict are the people suffering and dying over whose imaginary friend is more "real".

That's not it at all, so your antitheism isn't needed in this discussion. This isn't Islam vs Judaism, its about Palestinians and Jews. If you want a Orthodox Jewish perspective on the existence of a Jewish country, feel free to get informed.

ratzofftoya:
Yes, it sucks that you have to be subject to missile attacks every once in a while. But under the international definition of occupation, and, indeed, under and reasonable definition of that word, Gaza (and to some extent, the West Bank), are occupied. Under international law, occupied people have a right to resist, even by force. What else are they to do? There can't be peace until this issue is addressed.

What else are they to do? How about not intentionally target Israeli civilians? I'm pretty sure that international law doesn't condone terrorist groups(Hamas) intentionally trying to kill civilians, like when anti-tank missiles are fired at Israeli school buses filled with children.

TheIronRuler:
"This latest massacre in Gaza..." - Massacre in Gaza? Oh boy you have no idea what a massacre truly is, and if you think that way then you must be unfamiliar with the ways the IDF operates.

Well, Merriam-Wesbter might. "The act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." I'm sure you'll have an argument as to the men and women (122-odd) that were killed, though most were acknowledged even by Israel to be civilians. But 27 children? Helpless and unresisting. As for the atrocity and cruelty part, I'm not sure what you'd call bombing civilian targets (including media centers--that alone is a war crime), but I'm pretty sure any kind of strafing runs in a densely populated residential area is atrocious. Lastly, regarding the ways the IDF operates...I have 6 family members in my immediate (i.e. nuclear) family who are IDF veterans, including two in active service. I lived in Jordan and reported on these issues for 3 years. I'm no expert, but I'm not entirely unfamiliar.

"...was clearly a product of partisan Israeli politics, not an attempt to garner further security." - No it wasn't. I'm saying this as a citizen and a person that knows the political landscape here. If the operation was supposed to help the Likud party dominate the next elections, then the operation was a failure. The PM alienated truly right wing nuts that wanted a ground invasion and also alienated liberals that didn't want the war to escalate (BTW that's like 2 thirds of his base). It didn't destroy him, but it cost him with lots of votes. Furthermore, the PM had already made a step to secure his position as the head of state by combining forces with another nationalist right wing, (but strictly secular) party. This meant that he would remain the biggest party in the block, and only an extreme event could change that. The country, having suffered the second Intifada even after they thought signing the Oslo Accords was a step towards Peace was slapped in the face. For that, the public had moved much to the right of the map. The Labor party was fucked. If you want I can discuss this issue further. That is, if you're interested in local politics, which you probably aren't.

I've been a citizen. You can say I also know the political landscape, though likely not as well as you. I don't think the Lieberman folks were alienated as much as you think. I do think that denying that this was politically-motivated (obviously not exclusively) is silly. It's clear now that Israelis had, through various channels, been negotiating with Jabari mere days before his assassination. The dude was a jerk, but his assassination was not a spontaneous event at an opportune moment, but at a calculated one.

"Does that not trouble you? Yes, it sucks that you have to be subject to missile attacks every once in a while." - It doesn't trouble me that my country retaliated to an organization that holds the Gaza Strip hostage and shoots rockets and mortars at my fellow citizens.

Yes, your concern for the citizens of the Gaza Strip really shines through. The rockets and mortars--and lets be clear here, they are extremely ineffectual--are an unfortunate consequence of occupying Gaza (more on that below). Thinking that this "retaliation" was either proportional or narrowly-targeted is a joke. There are two ways to try to protect your fellow citizens (because the rockets are so destructive). One is by attempting to "reformat" Gaza (Avi Dicther), terrify Gaza citizens, and set Hamas back. In the process, you're going to kill a lot of innocent people, provoke entirely justified condemnation from pretty much everyone in the world, and set any possibility of peace back significantly. The other is to continue to negotiate with Hamas. I suppose my preference is clear here, but there is also a substantial enough group of Zionist academics who believe that further negotiation was a prudent and fruitful course of action. So don't pretend that this was the only way out. I want the rocket attacks from Hamas to stop. I also want to stop violent extremism in all its forms. That doesn't mean I support drone strikes in Pakistan, and it doesn't mean I support Cloud Pillar.

"But under the international definition of occupation, and, indeed, under and reasonable definition of that word, Gaza (and to some extent, the West Bank), are occupied." - to the eyes of many Palestinians, all of Palestine is occupied and they will not rest until Israel is gone and all Jews are banished. This is why the symbol of the PLO features a full land of the mandate of Palestine. It was established in '64. They will not rest until all of Israel is gone

Ah, this old chestnut. Last resort of those desperate to justify their violence. I want my people to be free, just, kind, merciful, forgiving, and charitable. Doesn't really matter much to me what others do in the face of that. I also think your argument is wrong, but that's neither here nor there. Your appeals to the actions of others hold no water in terms of justifying the actions of your own state. Israel is in a position to make the right choice when it comes to human rights and international relations EVERY time. They don't have to engage in mutual recriminations. You should encourage your government to aspire to virtue, right?

Gaza is not occupied, simple as that. The blockade on Gaza is perfectly legal as a country can close its borders to any other country if it so pleases. A country can control its borders, period. It can also impose an embargo on another country, and the naval blockade itself proves to be legal.

Here's what the Hague conventions have to say about occupation: "The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own." To say that Israel and the IDF do not exercise effective control over the Gaza Strip REALLY strains the imagination. Even Amnesty International and Human Rights watch say that Israel is occupying Gaza--these are brand name, multimillion dollar NGOs that are politically correct to a fault (literally). At some point, you have to question your Sisyphusian efforts to legitimize this bullshit against the tide of inter- and trans-national opinion and look around you.

The only problem that may arise here is the argument that this blockade is a punishment for all Palestinians living within Gaza, which I find preposterous.

Oh? I'm assuming you mean that the argument is preposterous, rather than the act itself. If not, we are in agreement.

Sure, call the west bank occupied, as if there was any country Israel conquered it from. With the lose of the Jordanian claim to sovereignty, no country legally holds claims over that land. You might as well hold a piece of Antartica that wasn't claimed yet, trouble is that the place has actual people within it, and this is where the problems begin.

Yup.

"Under international law, occupied people have a right to resist, even by force. What else are they to do? There can't be peace until this issue is addressed." - I think I've addressed this earlier, look one bit up.

Can't seem to find it.

"Also, if you simply believe in the righteousness of your own people, why not have Israel extent a genuine, acceptable offer of peace that includes reparations and a right of return?" - Reparations and a right of Return? Israel needs to apologize for a war of defense?

It needs to apologize for, at the very least, the recognized price civilians have had to pay as a result of its war of defense. Doesn't that just strike you as basic decency?

Israel needs to apologize it stopped others from destroying it?

No, not necessarily that part.

Why should any of those refugees, that hold a special status as a Palestinian refugee, not akin to any other refugee in the world, be able to return to Israel? It's not their country anymore.

What you just said, while factually correct, makes you sound like a total dick. Is that your intention? "Nanananabooboo, I took your land and you can't have it back because it's mine now!"

Had they were normal refugees they would have already integrated into other countries and lived their lives well, but the neighboring Arab nations naturally refused. They would end Israel, and give the refugees a place to return to. However that plan already failed.

"Haha! Stupid Palestinians! Even your Arab friends (because all Arabs are the same) won't take you, so now you have no place to go!" Jesus, man. Did you not fucking read Exodus? Meaning the book of the Torah and the Uris book? Why do you not want to do your utmost so that your state is seen as a bastion of human rights consciousness, fairness, and generosity? I don't want the nation that represents my people to act, act its very best, just like all the other realpolitik-practicing neoliberal plutocracies in the West. Dios mio. Judah Magnes is spinning in his grave.

"Jews who make arguments similar to yours are, in my opinion, having a lot of trouble dealing with the fact that they are POWERFUL. They are AGGRESSORS. At least at this time and in this context." - Right now? Against the Palestinians they are powerful, but how can you treat them?

Like weaker people. Like occupied people (as outlined in the Hague conventions).

Soldiers are unable to respond to people throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at them because their commanders fear that the Palestinian cameras would document this event where a soldier defends his life by shooting at those who attacked them and use it as propaganda or a way to incriminate that soldier and the IDF. The IDF can't deal with this sort of a problem.

Perhaps shooting guns at children who throw rocks at you from the "safe zone" created by the IDF ON GAZA TERRITORY isn't the best idea then?

An army isn't supposed to deal with a violent population.

???

"your former speaker of the Knesset argued, you can't be held down by the memory of the Holocaust, recent as it was." - What are you talking about? "

Avraham Burg.

"That memory has lead to abject cruelty toward innocent children, it has led to the creation what is essentially an open air prison with one of the highest population densities in the world" - Ah, the children! The Gaza strip was a result of the '47-'49 war. A local Palestinian administration was made in '48 during the war with Israel. After the war, Egypt took control of the area and treated the local Palestinian administration as a mere puppet. It was in place to stop Jordan from exerting influence over the area, as it had already taken the west bank for itself. Egypt denied the people living in Gaza Egyptian citizenship. In '59, the then president Nassar dissolved the administration and then directly controlled the Gaza strip - not as a part of Egypt, but as a controlled territory and administered it through a military governor. Egypt denied those in the Gaza strip freedom of movement and did not allow them to leave for Egypt where they could find a better life, as the growing number of people in the area made life much harder. Jobs were scarce and overall the standard of living dropped significantly. After 1967, the Israeli military was the one that administered the area.

See my argument above. Maintaining the status quo is unacceptable if the status quo itself is unacceptable. What are you saying, that Israel was incapable of more just, peaceful, and egalitarian control of Gaza than Egypt? I don't buy that argument. You're selling your government and your people far short of what I expected.

Following the '79 peace with Egypt, they did not address Gaza at all - but Egypt did relinquish all claims across its border with Israel. Therefore it was not Israel that created this "open air prison", but it was Egypt and Israel inherited this pain in the ass from them.

See my argument above. Also, are you trying to say that Israel has done nothing to exacerbate this situation? That's delusion bordering on psychopathy.

"But if you're interested in maintaining a peaceful, legitimate, democratic state of Israel, you should be doing everything you can to curtail the expanding apartheid programs that are only destined to bring Israel down." - Woo, now we've dropped the Apartheid word into the discussion. Great... Do you realize that the word was coined to address the South Africa situation? Since the people living outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders, without Israeli citizenship - but live under Israel's military administration, this does not apply.

Well, I'm also referring to the apartheid throughout Israel and the West Bank, as well, so there's that. Also, do you know what a sandwich is? That term was coined to describe some meat between two pieces of starch because the Earl of Sandwich (that's in the UK) liked to eat his meat that way. Now I can eat sandwiches though I am not an earl and live in the US. That's the thing with language. In the case of "apartheid," it means any of a range of measures used to create social or racial segregation. Does that not apply? Also, see my argument regarding occupation above.

The instance where a minority holds control over a government and uses violence, intimidation and terror to oppress the majority living in that country for their benefit (woo slavery) does not hold water in the case of Israel.

Your consistency in sticking to this IDF-as-liberator-of-Gaza narrative is admirable. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the minority/majority situation, I think I'm just not understanding correctly.

"I'm unsure about the validity of an explicitly racist state--Israel or any of the other ones on the planet. On the one hand, I understand your argument. On the other hand, it's hard to justify a state premised on preferential treatment for a specific group of people, and one that isn't even necessarily in the demographic majority in that part of the world. " - Is it that hard for a person to understand the idea behind giving a land to a people to govern themselves under? If that land is overrun with other people, then how will it stay the people's land? (This gives off bad vibes, kinda reminds me of the Parsley massacre.)

I understand the desire for it. That doesn't mean I think it's the right thing to do. Self-determination as an international human rights concept only works when you've got a geographically contiguous racial group. What you did say DOES apply to Gaza or the West Bank, but it doesn't apply to Israel, which is a state reserved for Jews around the world, premised on a land claim that had...shall we say, lapsed? As soon as the idea of "giving a land to a people to govern themselves" means negatively impacting the people around them--including as part of simply maintaining that land--it becomes a problem, to use your vernacular. In this case, I'm not sure how I feel about a special state with the special mission of taking care of special Jews. But I know how I feel about Israel as its being governed now: severely ashamed and disappointed.

Helmholtz Watson:

ratzofftoya:
Yes, it sucks that you have to be subject to missile attacks every once in a while. But under the international definition of occupation, and, indeed, under and reasonable definition of that word, Gaza (and to some extent, the West Bank), are occupied. Under international law, occupied people have a right to resist, even by force. What else are they to do? There can't be peace until this issue is addressed.

What else are they to do? How about not intentionally target Israeli civilians? I'm pretty sure that international law doesn't condone terrorist groups(Hamas) intentionally trying to kill civilians, like when anti-tank missiles are fired at Israeli school buses filled with children.

First of all, I completely, 100% agree that not intentionally targeting Israeli civilians is a better form of resistance for Hamas. But notice that the attack which you cited was in response to the deaths of 3 civilian youths, and did not kill anyone. Also notice that Israel is the occupier and has, under international law, a special duty to take care of the civilians subject to its occupation. Hamas has no such duty.

Second, this is incredibly shoddy journalism that is unfortunately indicative of the kind of deference given to Israel and the IDF by major media organizations. The article only says that Israel claimed that the missile was specifically targeted at the bus. There was no independent verification of this claim by the NYT--NONE. That's appalling because it causes smart people like you to think that what is essentially IDF dicta is fact. Most of Hamas' missiles are made of donkey shit (literally) and duct tape, but this one had an advanced laser targeting system? I'm not saying that wasn't true (and lord knows the rocket attacks are horrible regardless) but it's the kind of suspect claim that ought to be verified, not copy-pasted from IDF propaganda.

Third, your post pretends to suggest an alternative, but all you said was another than that they SHOULDN'T do. So..no.

ratzofftoya:

Helmholtz Watson:

ratzofftoya:
Yes, it sucks that you have to be subject to missile attacks every once in a while. But under the international definition of occupation, and, indeed, under and reasonable definition of that word, Gaza (and to some extent, the West Bank), are occupied. Under international law, occupied people have a right to resist, even by force. What else are they to do? There can't be peace until this issue is addressed.

What else are they to do? How about not intentionally target Israeli civilians? I'm pretty sure that international law doesn't condone terrorist groups(Hamas) intentionally trying to kill civilians, like when anti-tank missiles are fired at Israeli school buses filled with children.

First of all, I completely, 100% agree that not intentionally targeting Israeli civilians is a better form of resistance for Hamas. But notice that the attack which you cited was in response to the deaths of 3 civilian youths,

Wrong, the response wasn't for civilians, it was for three military personal. Big difference.

ratzofftoya:

Also notice that Israel is the occupier and has, under international law, a special duty to take care of the civilians subject to its occupation. Hamas has no such duty.

That doesn't absolve Hamas for how they treat people in their own territory.

ratzofftoya:

Second, this is incredibly shoddy journalism that is unfortunately indicative of the kind of deference given to Israel and the IDF by major media organizations. The article only says that Israel claimed that the missile was specifically targeted at the bus. There was no independent verification of this claim by the NYT--NONE. That's appalling because it causes smart people like you to think that what is essentially IDF dicta is fact. Most of Hamas' missiles are made of donkey shit (literally) and duct tape, but this one had an advanced laser targeting system? I'm not saying that wasn't true (and lord knows the rocket attacks are horrible regardless) but it's the kind of suspect claim that ought to be verified, not copy-pasted from IDF propaganda.

Propaganda, really? Who said that they were "advanced laser targeting systems"? Who? As for the quality of Hamas's weapons, they have their sources.

ratzofftoya:

Third, your post pretends to suggest an alternative, but all you said was another than that they SHOULDN'T do. So..no.

What?

ratzofftoya:
First of all, I completely, 100% agree that not intentionally targeting Israeli civilians is a better form of resistance for Hamas. But notice that the attack which you cited was in response to the deaths of 3 civilian youths, and did not kill anyone. Also notice that Israel is the occupier and has, under international law, a special duty to take care of the civilians subject to its occupation. Hamas has no such duty.

Really? So if someone occupies my homeland, am I entitled to start massacring their children?

I think you may be missing the point. Yes, Israeli artillery and airstrikes are very stand-offish weapons and tend to cause collateral damage, but the reasons for this is mainly that militants continuously operate out of civilian populated areas. Is this purely a coincidence? or could this perhaps be because they know that if Israeli munitions kill civilians it can be seen as "IDF brutality".

Consider the flipside: If Israeli military bases were always housed next to orphanages and schools (assuming that militant weapons are actually accurate enough to be close to hitting them) and then the Israeli's complained about the bombing of said civilians, the prevailing opinion would just be to move the bases to a different location. The militants know that operating out of towns will cause civilian casualties, but do so anyway.

ratzofftoya:
Second, this is incredibly shoddy journalism that is unfortunately indicative of the kind of deference given to Israel and the IDF by major media organizations. The article only says that Israel claimed that the missile was specifically targeted at the bus. There was no independent verification of this claim by the NYT--NONE. That's appalling because it causes smart people like you to think that what is essentially IDF dicta is fact. Most of Hamas' missiles are made of donkey shit (literally) and duct tape, but this one had an advanced laser targeting system? I'm not saying that wasn't true (and lord knows the rocket attacks are horrible regardless) but it's the kind of suspect claim that ought to be verified, not copy-pasted from IDF propaganda.

You can't surely be arguing that all of the reports of Hamas/militant attacks aimed at Israeli civilians are fictitious Israeli propaganda, can you? That would seem slightly absurd. Granted, it may be that some facts are exaggerated, but it still remains that there are attacks being made with the express purpose of killing civilians.

Helmholtz Watson:

ratzofftoya:

Helmholtz Watson:
What else are they to do? How about not intentionally target Israeli civilians? I'm pretty sure that international law doesn't condone terrorist groups(Hamas) intentionally trying to kill civilians, like when anti-tank missiles are fired at Israeli school buses filled with children.

First of all, I completely, 100% agree that not intentionally targeting Israeli civilians is a better form of resistance for Hamas. But notice that the attack which you cited was in response to the deaths of 3 civilian youths,

Wrong, the response wasn't for civilians, it was for three military personal. Big difference.

You're right. Sorry. I was thinking of the three civilians who died as a result of the Israeli response to the response.

That doesn't absolve Hamas for how they treat people in their own territory

Uh, yes. Right. But we're talking about attacks from Israel to Gaza and vice-versa, and their impact on civilians. So that's really orthogonal to the discussion, is it not?

Propaganda, really? Who said that they were "advanced laser targeting systems"? Who?

Yes. Propaganda. You know, "information spread for the purpose of furthering one's cause or damaging another's cause?" I'm not sure what makes you so incredulous about this, since it was right in the article you posted. "But Israeli security officials said that the Kornet antitank missile fired on Thursday was an advanced and accurate weapon deliberately aimed at the bus. The missile, which is laser guided, has a range of about three miles, and in this case, according to initial findings, it hit its target from a distance of nearly two miles, the officials said." So all of the information about these missiles is taken from an Israeli security official, a person in Israeli government. That's propaganda--not because it's necessarily false, but because it's certainly disseminated to advance a particular cause.

As for the quality of Hamas's weapons, they have their sources

That article is from 1.5 years after the attack described in the NYT article, so it's entirely irrelevant. The numbers speak for themselves. According to Israeli human rights groups (most prominently B'tselem): 18 Israelis killed by Gaza-based Palestinian Groups between December of 2008 (the end of Cast Lead) and October 2012. 1,661 Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israel during that same time. In 2011 alone (the relevant timeframe in terms of that article), Israeli forces killed or injured 168 women and children in Gaza. Each of these--in addition to the 1 injury on the school bus--is a tragedy. It's also pathetic to say that the casualties on the Gaza side are unintentional, if "intent" encompasses "wonton disregard," as it does in American criminal law. These civilian casualties are the natural consequence of a first-world country, with all the trappings of a modern highly sophisticated weapons arsenal, launching devastating and brutal attacks (Israel agrees that they are both devastating and brutal) against the most densely populated area in the world, where half its population is youth and 40 percent of its population lives below the poverty line.

ratzofftoya:

Third, your post pretends to suggest an alternative, but all you said was another than that they SHOULDN'T do. So..no.

What?

I think it's pretty clear what I mean. You said "What else are they to do [to resist occupation]? How about not intentionally target Israeli civilians?" "Not intentionally target[ing] Israeli civilians" is not an acceptable suggestion for what they SHOULD do to resist occupation. It's just your (ineffective and sophomoric) rhetorical technique.

ratzofftoya:

-snip-

.
Answering you separately is going to be a massive pain in the ass as there are so many issues to address. Damn it.

Well, Merriam-Wesbter might. "The act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." I'm sure you'll have an argument as to the men and women (122-odd) that were killed, though most were acknowledged even by Israel to be civilians. But 27 children? Helpless and unresisting. As for the atrocity and cruelty part, I'm not sure what you'd call bombing civilian targets (including media centers--that alone is a war crime), but I'm pretty sure any kind of strafing runs in a densely populated residential area is atrocious. Lastly, regarding the ways the IDF operates...I have 6 family members in my immediate (i.e. nuclear) family who are IDF veterans, including two in active service. I lived in Jordan and reported on these issues for 3 years. I'm no expert, but I'm not entirely unfamiliar.

.
What, caught in the splash zone isn't good enough? Of course it isn't. There's no point to civilian casualties inflicted by the IDF on Hamas, it only adds more fuel to the fire. The IDF specifically tries its best to make precision strikes against launching pads and launching groups that go on a fast-moving vehicle, get near the border, launch the missile and get back.

The IDF didn't have soldiers stare at the eyes of the little boys and girls and laugh maniacally as they shoot them in the head and make their mothers watch. What would you say to those who placed these launching pads in residential areas in the first place? Should Israel refrain from hitting targets because there's a risk of hitting civilians? That's exactly what Hamas is planning on.

Let me make this easy for you.
This is something Israel agreed to. This is something that Israel didn't agree to. This speaks of several protocols from the addition that have become 'universal' as international law. Neither did Israel agree to this. Israel cannot go against this. Sad, is it not?

This international law cannot apply since Israel had not agreed to its sovereignty in its nation. 170 nations signed up. The second protocols have 165 nations sign up.
Here's a list for your convenience:
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/(SPF)/party_main_treaties/$File/IHL_and_other_related_Treaties.pdf
.
"I've been a citizen. You can say I also know the political landscape, though likely not as well as you. I don't think the Lieberman folks were alienated as much as you think. I do think that denying that this was politically-motivated (obviously not exclusively) is silly. It's clear now that Israelis had, through various channels, been negotiating with Jabari mere days before his assassination. The dude was a jerk, but his assassination was not a spontaneous event at an opportune moment, but at a calculated one."
I wasn't talking about Lieberman. He had allied himself with the Likud party. I'm talking about this guy. The Likud seems like a bunch of Socialists compared to him. You are really not into local politics, which is just fine, after all you're not living here.
.
"Yes, your concern for the citizens of the Gaza Strip really shines through. The rockets and mortars--and lets be clear here, they are extremely ineffectual--are an unfortunate consequence of occupying Gaza (more on that below). Thinking that this "retaliation" was either proportional or narrowly-targeted is a joke. There are two ways to try to protect your fellow citizens (because the rockets are so destructive). One is by attempting to "reformat" Gaza (Avi Dicther), terrify Gaza citizens, and set Hamas back. In the process, you're going to kill a lot of innocent people, provoke entirely justified condemnation from pretty much everyone in the world, and set any possibility of peace back significantly. The other is to continue to negotiate with Hamas. I suppose my preference is clear here, but there is also a substantial enough group of Zionist academics who believe that further negotiation was a prudent and fruitful course of action. So don't pretend that this was the only way out. I want the rocket attacks from Hamas to stop. I also want to stop violent extremism in all its forms. That doesn't mean I support drone strikes in Pakistan, and it doesn't mean I support Cloud Pillar."

They were ineffectual before they were replaced with more advanced weaponry. Indeed, soviet army stockpiles are nothing compared to modern machinery, but missiles such as this one do compare. They had those missiles in stock, which is why they were the first targets in the first Israel strikes against their weapons stockpiles.

Continue to negotiate with Hamas? Are you serious? Here you see no movement coming in the negotiations with the west Bank's PLO leader, yet when Hamas uses force to intimidate Israel they must negotiate? Do you see the dangerous precedent that can be set here? Furthermore, Israel had tried to negotiate with Hamas through the Egyptian-Turkish-Qatar coalition, but it took them a lot of time to get back to reality while Israel continued with its attacks. Ever heard of "We do not negotiate with terrorists" catch-phrase?
.
"Ah, this old chestnut. Last resort of those desperate to justify their violence. I want my people to be free, just, kind, merciful, forgiving, and charitable. Doesn't really matter much to me what others do in the face of that. I also think your argument is wrong, but that's neither here nor there. Your appeals to the actions of others hold no water in terms of justifying the actions of your own state. Israel is in a position to make the right choice when it comes to human rights and international relations EVERY time. They don't have to engage in mutual recriminations. You should encourage your government to aspire to virtue, right?" -
I added : "but at least now there's a big camp in Fatah that says the Palestinians should just take the '49 armistice borders and leave it at that, which is a step in the right direction". If you ignore what I've said you yourself are a dreamer.
.
"Here's what the Hague conventions have to say about occupation: "The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own." To say that Israel and the IDF do not exercise effective control over the Gaza Strip REALLY strains the imagination. Even Amnesty International and Human Rights watch say that Israel is occupying Gaza--these are brand name, multimillion dollar NGOs that are politically correct to a fault (literally). At some point, you have to question your Sisyphusian efforts to legitimize this bullshit against the tide of inter- and trans-national opinion and look around you."

Israel does not have any military presence within Gaza itself. It does maintain a border fence with a buffer zone against an enemy entity and an ongoing blockade. There is no Israeli military administration lording over Gaza.
.
"Oh? I'm assuming you mean that the argument is preposterous, rather than the act itself. If not, we are in agreement." The argument that Israel is doing a collective punishment here is preposterous.
.
"It needs to apologize for, at the very least, the recognized price civilians have had to pay as a result of its war of defense. Doesn't that just strike you as basic decency?"-What about those civilians who stayed within Israel's borders, Arab civilians, and became Israeli citizens? What is the difference between the two? Israel should not apologize for the war or its consequences. The Arabs had brought this conflict upon themselves. Had they won we wouldn't be having this conversation.
.
"What you just said, while factually correct, makes you sound like a total dick. Is that your intention? "Nanananabooboo, I took your land and you can't have it back because it's mine now!""- What I said was right. It's an argument against allowing Palestinians refugees to return to Israel. When a palestinian country rises, they can return all they want there.
.
""Haha! Stupid Palestinians! Even your Arab friends (because all Arabs are the same) won't take you, so now you have no place to go!" Jesus, man. Did you not fucking read Exodus? Meaning the book of the Torah and the Uris book? Why do you not want to do your utmost so that your state is seen as a bastion of human rights consciousness, fairness, and generosity? I don't want the nation that represents my people to act, act its very best, just like all the other realpolitik-practicing neoliberal plutocracies in the West. Dios mio. Judah Magnes is spinning in his grave."-
Dude are you unfamiliar with the nationalism of Arabs before the arbitrary lines were drawn by European superpowers? The differences themselves weren't that significant in the twenty years that passed since the mandate came into place (& lets not forget countries like Iraq). I don't think there was much of a difference between Arabs from Palestine, Transjordan, or Syria. So yes, they were all the same.

The Arabs themselves won't absorb them, pure and simple. The economic burden would be too much. Jordan couldn't, with its demographics problem. The same goes for Lebanon, which still treats Palestinians worse than Jordan. The simple issue here is that they refuse to give them refuge, instead pointing at Israel and blame it for it all. My example of a Sudanese refugee works well in this case. Why not absorb him, and instead force him to live as a refugee all of his life until he could return to Sudan?
.
"Perhaps shooting guns at children who throw rocks at you from the "safe zone" created by the IDF ON GAZA TERRITORY isn't the best idea then?" - I was referring to recent riots in the west bank. Gangs come to patrolling soldiers, throw rocks and molotov cocktails, yet they can't respond because they commanders won't let them. They used to shoot rubber bullets, but those were discontinued because they caused injuries to the Palestinians and even caused a few deaths (hitting a soft spot on the head). Tear gas would affect the soldiers as well as the civilians. This feels more and more like a third intifada.
.
"Maintaining the status quo is unacceptable if the status quo itself is unacceptable. What are you saying, that Israel was incapable of more just, peaceful, and egalitarian control of Gaza than Egypt? I don't buy that argument. You're selling your government and your people far short of what I expected." - Yes. What could have Israel done to Gaza in order to help it, or strive for a "more just, peaceful, and egalitarian control of Gaza"? There is no solution I can think of. It was similar to the way Egypt administered it, pure and simple.
.
"Also, are you trying to say that Israel has done nothing to exacerbate this situation? That's delusion bordering on psychopathy." - I was addressing your false claims that Israel created the situation in Gaza! You can't move the goal-post and say that Israel had done nothing to exacerbate the situation, because you first argued Israel created the whole mess in the first place, which is not true!
.
"I understand the desire for it. That doesn't mean I think it's the right thing to do. Self-determination as an international human rights concept only works when you've got a geographically contiguous racial group. What you did say DOES apply to Gaza or the West Bank, but it doesn't apply to Israel, which is a state reserved for Jews around the world, premised on a land claim that had...shall we say, lapsed? As soon as the idea of "giving a land to a people to govern themselves" means negatively impacting the people around them--including as part of simply maintaining that land--it becomes a problem, to use your vernacular. In this case, I'm not sure how I feel about a special state with the special mission of taking care of special Jews. But I know how I feel about Israel as its being governed now: severely ashamed and disappointed."

Let me quote a comment I wrote to a different person:

TheIronRuler:

RUINER ACTUAL:

TheIronRuler:

.
"You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land."
"The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out,"

Generalization, AHOY!
Just had to mention that you shouldn't generalize a whole people...or wish for their destruction.
.

You missed my second post on this subject about building a water park! Now that's the ideal solution. Then everyone (left) in the Middle East would have somewhere fun to cool down- an oasis in the desert! Then maybe they won't all be so angry.

But seriously, could you explain to me how the Palestinians wouldn't be pissed off? Like if you were living somewhere, and the family who lived there years ago suddenly came back and called dibs. Not that I'm showing support for the Palestinians, as they're governed by a group who's objective is to wipe out the Jews. Like if your next-door neighbors soul purpose in life was to kill you.

I know what's going on over there. I just think it's so idiotic, due in part that it's based on ancient books, stories, and rules, that I don't think either side should win, and that it should be solved without international influence. Fix your own problems without dragging US into it.

.
If you're drawing comparisons, I can try to correct that oversimplified idea:
A family is living in a house that they're renting. A family who used to live there a long time ago is kicked out of the last place they lived in. They buy the house from the person renting the house out to the other family, and when they come into the house the local family who had been paying rent and living in that house for centuries is upset because it feels that this land belongs to them. So... LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!
At the end the family that wants to move into the house they bought gets attacked by the previous attendents. Their neighbors who own their houses come in and help them get the new family out, because they're of a different religion and they don't want them in their neighborhood. The new family fights back and defeats the family that lives in their house, but they also defeat the families that lived in the neighboring houses and sent them away. Then a bunch of the new family's family members come in and settle in these new empty houses while those who owned these houses are stuck in a tent outside of their neighborhood waiting for their landlord to come in and kick the new attendants back. Problem is... They failed. Multiple times. During that failure those owning the houses capture the area on which the tents were made. They offer the people living in the tents to join in their neighborhood, but they refuse because they believe they stole their land all that time ago. So now the people living in tents go out of their way to attack those who live in the houses on the other neighborhood via stabbings, suicide bombings, shooting incidents... Now the neighboring cities see this problem and try to stop the fighting. Some say that the new attendants stole those territories away from the original locals, while others say that what was done was done, and now an official border needs to be made between the two neighborhoods and separate them into two cities. However during that time, those who lived in houses started building more houses on the fringes of the land territories of the people living in the tents. This forms a problem because the border that was there before those living in tents were conquered now have changed because the new people have built houses on the other side, thus moving the border. Those living in tents say that the land is theirs, while those living in houses outside of their older border say that it belonged to no one so they just built a house there.
There is also the issue of a house that used to be divided among the two, and inside were a bunch of old photos and letters belonging to the new people in the houses. After they won it back they claimed it as their own, but the people living in tents disagreed and demanded that half of a house back.
Those living in tents also want the people who left their houses to return to their houses, even though they are long gone and those pertaining to be kicked out are actually their descendants, and not the people who used to own that piece of land.

Phew, I'm done.

Sanguine:

ratzofftoya:
First of all, I completely, 100% agree that not intentionally targeting Israeli civilians is a better form of resistance for Hamas. But notice that the attack which you cited was in response to the deaths of 3 civilian youths, and did not kill anyone. Also notice that Israel is the occupier and has, under international law, a special duty to take care of the civilians subject to its occupation. Hamas has no such duty.

Really? So if someone occupies my homeland, am I entitled to start massacring their children?

I think you may be missing the point. Yes, Israeli artillery and airstrikes are very stand-offish weapons and tend to cause collateral damage, but the reasons for this is mainly that militants continuously operate out of civilian populated areas. Is this purely a coincidence? or could this perhaps be because they know that if Israeli munitions kill civilians it can be seen as "IDF brutality".

Consider the flipside: If Israeli military bases were always housed next to orphanages and schools (assuming that militant weapons are actually accurate enough to be close to hitting them) and then the Israeli's complained about the bombing of said civilians, the prevailing opinion would just be to move the bases to a different location. The militants know that operating out of towns will cause civilian casualties, but do so anyway.

Well, that certainly is a tricky situation. You're right about that. It's difficult to figure a way out of that one. I see that your suggestion is just to say "oh" and bomb anyway, knowing that there would be civilian casulaties. I don't think that's an acceptable response.

Moreover, as I said, from the perspective of international law it's incumbent on Israel to protect civilians under their occupation. If they are unhappy with the resistance they are seeing, the first step would be to end their illegal occupation.

ratzofftoya:
Second, this is incredibly shoddy journalism that is unfortunately indicative of the kind of deference given to Israel and the IDF by major media organizations. The article only says that Israel claimed that the missile was specifically targeted at the bus. There was no independent verification of this claim by the NYT--NONE. That's appalling because it causes smart people like you to think that what is essentially IDF dicta is fact. Most of Hamas' missiles are made of donkey shit (literally) and duct tape, but this one had an advanced laser targeting system? I'm not saying that wasn't true (and lord knows the rocket attacks are horrible regardless) but it's the kind of suspect claim that ought to be verified, not copy-pasted from IDF propaganda.

You can't surely be arguing that all of the reports of Hamas/militant attacks aimed at Israeli civilians are fictitious Israeli propaganda, can you? That would seem slightly absurd. Granted, it may be that some facts are exaggerated, but it still remains that there are attacks being made with the express purpose of killing civilians.

[/quote]
Nope, I'm not saying that. I don't think there's any way you can read my post to say that. All I said was that we don't know that they were aiming at this school bus specifically. Also, I think you are conflating "propaganda" and "fictitious propaganda."

ratzofftoya:

Well, that certainly is a tricky situation. You're right about that. It's difficult to figure a way out of that one. I see that your suggestion is just to say "oh" and bomb anyway, knowing that there would be civilian casulaties. I don't think that's an acceptable response.

Moreover, as I said, from the perspective of international law it's incumbent on Israel to protect civilians under their occupation. If they are unhappy with the resistance they are seeing, the first step would be to end their illegal occupation.

I suppose this just highlights the difference of opinion. Obviously I do not share your belief that ending the occupation would lead to a better situation, but I suppose that's because I sympathize more with the Israeli attempts to protect their citizens than the Palestinian governing body's attempts to uproot them. Hm, perhaps I could have phrased that in a less biased way, but regardless I'm in no position to make a informed argument over it so I'm happy to put it down to a difference of opinion if you are.

ratzofftoya:

Nope, I'm not saying that. I don't think there's any way you can read my post to say that. All I said was that we don't know that they were aiming at this school bus specifically. Also, I think you are conflating "propaganda" and "fictitious propaganda."

You are quite right and on a re-read of your post I feel quite embarrassed, sorry about that.

TheIronRuler:

Danny Ocean:

BULLSHIT


USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, India, Japan, S.Korea, and probably more.

They are not backed into a corner with no-where to go, they deliberately put themselves in that location. That was the whole point. There's plenty of places those individuals could migrate to, but they persist out of ideological conviction.

.
The only solution to stop anything resembling the Holocaust to ever happen again to the Jews would be to make their own state which was already guaranteed by the UK before WW2. The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.

Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany.

Then shouldn't gays, gipsies, socialists and communists get their own states too? Jews weren't the only victims of nazism.

Anoni Mus:

TheIronRuler:

Danny Ocean:

BULLSHIT


USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, India, Japan, S.Korea, and probably more.

They are not backed into a corner with no-where to go, they deliberately put themselves in that location. That was the whole point. There's plenty of places those individuals could migrate to, but they persist out of ideological conviction.

.
The only solution to stop anything resembling the Holocaust to ever happen again to the Jews would be to make their own state which was already guaranteed by the UK before WW2. The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.

Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany.

Then shouldn't gays, gipsies, socialists and communists get their own states too? Jews weren't the only victims of nazism.

.
Their situations cannot be compared. You bringing this up shows you're not fully familiar with the topic.

TheIronRuler:

Anoni Mus:

TheIronRuler:

.
The only solution to stop anything resembling the Holocaust to ever happen again to the Jews would be to make their own state which was already guaranteed by the UK before WW2. The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.

Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany.

Then shouldn't gays, gipsies, socialists and communists get their own states too? Jews weren't the only victims of nazism.

.
Their situations cannot be compared. You bringing this up shows you're not fully familiar with the topic.

I'm not. I actually came to this topic to learn a little bit.
Still, tell me why the situations aren't comparable.

Sanguine:

ratzofftoya:

Well, that certainly is a tricky situation. You're right about that. It's difficult to figure a way out of that one. I see that your suggestion is just to say "oh" and bomb anyway, knowing that there would be civilian casulaties. I don't think that's an acceptable response.

Moreover, as I said, from the perspective of international law it's incumbent on Israel to protect civilians under their occupation. If they are unhappy with the resistance they are seeing, the first step would be to end their illegal occupation.

I suppose this just highlights the difference of opinion. Obviously I do not share your belief that ending the occupation would lead to a better situation, but I suppose that's because I sympathize more with the Israeli attempts to protect their citizens than the Palestinian governing body's attempts to uproot them. Hm, perhaps I could have phrased that in a less biased way, but regardless I'm in no position to make a informed argument over it so I'm happy to put it down to a difference of opinion if you are.

Fair enough! But I would urge you to consider a few things:

1.)the possibility that ending the occupation would--however slow and frustrating the progress may be--lead to a safer and better Jewish state of Israel
2.)the fact that the IDF's actions, whether due to misguided leadership, poor execution, or a deep-seated trauma from the relatively recent Holocaust, are not an effective effort to protect their citizens
3.)Palestinian motivations may be slightly more complex than just uprooting Israelis

Also keep in mind that Hamas is the governing body of the Gaza strip, not Palestine.

TheIronRuler:

ratzofftoya:

-snip-

Answering you separately is going to be a massive pain in the ass as there are so many issues to address. Damn it.

OK. While you're obviously very learned on this topic and intelligent in general, we seem to be at an ideological impasse with regard to some of these issues, including acceptable levels of violence against Palestinian civilians and acceptable levels of general dickishness with regard to collateral damage.

But the Israeli occupation of Gaza is fact.

In 2007, John Dugard, then UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, explained that the manifestations of Israel's continuing effective control include: (a) substantial control of Gaza's six land crossings; (b) control through military incursions, rocket attacks and sonic booms, and the declaration of areas inside the Strip as "no-go" zones where anyone who enters can be shot; (c) complete control of Gaza's airspace and territorial waters; and (d) control of the Palestinian Population Registry, which has the power and authority to define who is a "Palestinian" and who is a resident of Gaza.

To these must be added Israel's continuing capacity to invade Gaza, arrest residents, and transport them into Israel. In the wake of Israel's unilateral disengagement, which included the dissolution of the military court at the Erez base on the edge of Gaza, the Knesset enacted the 2006 Criminal Procedure Law to allow for the prosecution of Gazans in Israeli civil courts, and their imprisonment inside Israel. Moreover, on the very day Israel implemented the completion of its unilateral disengagement plan (12 September 2005), the military issued detention orders for two Gazans under the 2002 Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. That Israeli law (modeled on the military order issued by US President George W. Bush on 13 November 2001) was originally promulgated to provide legal cover for the imprisonment of kidnapped Lebanese nationals who were to be used as "bargaining chips" in exchange for Israeli prisoners of war and the remains of those who had been killed in Lebanon. Since 2005, that law has been used primarily to administratively detain (i.e., imprison without trial) Gazans.

According to Addameer, the Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, as of 1 November 2012, 445 Gazans were imprisoned in Israel. The International Committee of the Red Cross reports a higher figure of 550.

Since 2007, when Dugard offered up his authoritative calculus, much has changed, but none of these changes support the contention that Israel does not exercise effective control over Gaza. Sara Roy, in a recent Boston Globe article, offers examples of how, despite the absence of a military administration, Israel continues to control what happens "on the ground" on a daily basis. She writes:

Israeli-imposed buffer zones-areas of restricted access-now absorb nearly 14 percent of Gaza's total land and at least 48 percent of total arable land. Similarly, the sea buffer zone covers 85 percent of the maritime area promised to Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, reducing 20 nautical miles to three, where waters are fouled by sewage flows in excess of 23 million gallons daily.

Assaf Kfoury, who traveled into Gaza as part of an academic delegation in October, summarizes some of the well-documented elements of Israel's ongoing effective control. He writes:

The Gaza Strip is hemmed in from all sides. The Israeli naval blockade prevents all transport of people and goods from the sea. The land border with Israel is tightly sealed. Rafah at the southern edge of the Strip...is the only and hard way in and out, via Egypt, for the vast majority of Palestinians. Israel controls the Erez crossing, strictly monitoring entry of international aid workers, journalists, and a trickle of Palestinians...Over past decades and years, Palestinian industry has been systematically sabotaged in favor of Israeli industry, including industry (or whatever is worthy of the name) in Gaza, whose economy is essentially controlled by Israel. Most alarming is a recent UN report, Gaza in 2020, which suggests that Gaza will no longer be a "livable place" in 2020.

Kfoury also offers some examples of Israel's effective control that he witnessed firsthand.

Turning one's back to the misery inland, and looking out to the Mediterranean and its shimmering waters, should normally be a soothing escape, but not in Gaza. Our mornings over breakfast at the hotel were punctuated by gunfire from somewhere off shore. These were not dynamite sticks that kids or poor people detonated underwater to collect large quantities of stunned fish, as I initially thought, but gunfire from Israeli patrol boats warning fishermen to stay inside the three nautical-mile limit. On the morning we left the Strip, we were told that two fishermen who went beyond the limit were killed the day before.

These effective control measures and their adverse humanitarian consequences preceded the 2005 unilateral withdrawal and have continued since. Indeed, they were and remain the stock and trade of Israel's occupation of Gaza.

TheIronRuler:

Anoni Mus:

TheIronRuler:

.
The only solution to stop anything resembling the Holocaust to ever happen again to the Jews would be to make their own state which was already guaranteed by the UK before WW2. The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.

Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany.

Then shouldn't gays, gipsies, socialists and communists get their own states too? Jews weren't the only victims of nazism.

.
Their situations cannot be compared. You bringing this up shows you're not fully familiar with the topic.

What about homosexuals and gypsies? Both parties have been experiencing persecution over the course of history, and both suffered under Nazism (homosexuals even more so since they had the highest death rates in the camps because even amongst the other groups in there nobody helped the gays out). Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them.

So their situations can be compared, you just refuse to do so because it's inconvient for your position.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked