[Trenacker]

desertdude, the Huffington Post article leaves a lot to be desired in terms of its credibility. While it correctly and accurately points out that it is possible to credit Israel with a good portion of blame for the current situation, the article itself relies on a great many assertions and one-sided interpretations of the facts. I am happy to discuss in detail, if desired.

The problem here, generally speaking, is that people want to support one side or the other. It is interesting to note that both J.J. and the HuffPo author begin their respective articles with a fig-leaf condemnation of Israeli policy and HAMAS ideology respectively. Each then goes on to explain why the other side is most to blame.

In the end, it's hard for me to see where pressure can be applied to achieve a happy outcome. According to some analyses, the identity (and thus the future) of the Israeli state is a classic case of "insuperabability" -- in other words, an issue that has, historically, required war-making to solve because there cannot be compromise. Israel is either a Jewish state, or it isn't. Palestine is either sovereign, or it isn't. A democratic Israel won't be Israel from the point of view of many of its current citizens. A Palestine that has to make certain security guarantees to Israel won't actually be free from the point of view of many of its partisans.

[BRAH]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seems to me the UN is itself become an enemy of the State of Israel.

(Memo to self: When in New York City - avoid United Nations Plaza)

The UN is an enemy of humanity, it did nothing to stop the Rwandan Genocide.

[Khar]

desertdude desertdude:

With all due respect Khar, that is just bullshit. This whole Gaza mess started when Hamas was elected fairly in Gaza and Israel went all ape shit, lay siege to Gaza by land sea and air. You're free to vote for anyone as long as we approve. So much for democracy in the Arab world, eh ? It doesn't work that way the example of the IRA is in front of you, until Britain sat down and talked to the IRA they did not achieve peace. Israel has tried everything including bombing the shit out of Gaza except talk.

During the Suez Canal crisis, Israel declared the restriction of Israeli shipping through the canal as an act of war and went to war over it, this is exactly what its doing with Gaza now.

A 10 year peace plan lays on the table, which asks for lifting of the blockade. A permanent peace plan, the Arab peace plan signed by every one except Israel which includes the recognition by all Arab states and an end to their Israeli boycott lays rotting in some desk drawer. Israel continues to sabotage any peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Like I said in the other thread, if you're going to turn it into the world biggest open air prison then don't be shocked if the "inmates" are going to riot every chance they get.

Withdraw your settlements, remove your military from Palestinian land, define your borders, lift the illegal siege, recognize the Palestinian state, remove your apartheid wall and then if still the Palestinians don't stop this shit, do what ever you please. But don't just make up pie in the sky with your what ifs and buts and justify your land grabs and massacres.

I could, but shouldn't, respond that Israel was within their rights to respond to what the EU, Canada, the US, and Arab states like Jordan and Egypt have stated is a terrorist organization gaining the power of a state due to it's acts of violence for more than a decade prior to the election, including suicide bombings, rocket attacks and more. I could, but shouldn't, also state that for all their claims of willingness to negotiate, they refused requests by the quartet (Russia, USA, UN and EU) that future support be conditioned on commitments to nonviolence, recognition of Israel and previous agreements. I shouldn't however, have to make these comments, because that is entirely an error; if I continue to look back permanently I will always find a divisive issue worth bringing up again, and that's exactly what I'm doing; looking even further back to find the egregious harm prior to the egregious harm you stated.

Your response seems to continue the pattern that allows for endless more bullshit of wrongs committed being excuses to allow for whatever actions we want in the future. As long as we can all pull the "all this started when" and pick a new starting point each time, no wrong cannot be committed because everything is in response to something else, and no argument can be made because we're all talking about different starting points. Both you and andyt have picked different starting points on the first page already. In the other thread, I counted no less than 14 before I stopped reading several days ago. Frankly, if everyone's method to this argument is to try to convince each other of our own personal cornerstones, we aren't going to get anywhere. If we can't agree where shit started then I say ignore the morass of politically, culturally and emotionally charged talking points and break it down into manageable conflicts. Yes, the past conflicts informed this one. No, past conflicts are not an excusable reason to endlessly begin new ones, especially ones aimed indiscriminately at civilians. No, we shouldn't couch justifications for future conflicts in past ones.

See, it's great, I don't disagree that Israel screws around. Indeed, I'd say more pressure needs to be put on Israel during peacetime, and that is exactly what's happening. Widespread acceptance of a unity government, for example. As a Western aligned nation who receives financial and political support from our governments, it's an expectation of mine that they follow our morals where possible (and justify it, as I did in this thread, when they do not). It isn't related to anything I said as a result of the current conflict, nor does it excuse why Hamas does what they are doing. Explains, yes. Makes acceptable, no. International outrage is a tool already available, as pointed out by Trenacker; they did not need rocket attacks to get that. Nor did they need tunnels.

Regardless, your response is separate from with why Israel went to war in this case, the justness of that war, nor the issues with morality in this war. It doesn't deal with the harm of appeasement I talked about. Nor does it deal with the actions of this conflict, in whether the actions of Israel can be seen as defensible. Just because I am supporting Israel in this case does not mean I support their peacetime practices nor their history in it's entirety. Reciting peacetime issues doesn't sway me from my stance of their actions in war. Just my thoughts.

andyt andyt:

Makes no sense to try to pick out particular conflicts in isolation. That way lies madness, actions that seem perfectly reasonable without context.

Neither side wants peace. The Palestinians would rather wage futile war and play into Israeli hands, give them an excuse to not sue for peace themselves. Trying to pick this mess apart into one side being less culpable is a mug's game.

I'm not dealing with the mess, but this conflict. The mess comes from the 66 odd years of endless conflict in the area, and the confusing morass of events, timelines, spin, attacks, responses, changes and resolutions that define it. Each conflict in contrast is already informed by the general stance of mutual dislike in the situation but can be measured more accurately than the overall mess between the Israeli state and Palestinian diaspora.

Also, I didn't stated we treat things in perfect isolation. I already stated we can inform ourselves of the past. Discussing the morality of the current engagement, however, is not egregiously harmed when it doesn't derail into an immediate discussion on who is to blame for all conflicts between Gaza or Israel. Frankly, we pick out specific conflicts in history all the time; we don't have to be considering modern France or ancient states like Burgundy when we're discussing the Franco-Prussian war, however, or World War 2. If we can't even define a conflict, exactly how are we even making arguments in regards to Palestine or Israel ever anyways?

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

What an utter load of horse shit, same old bullshit dressed in a different way, I would respond but I think this does a better job of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-h ... 1406545029

Here we go, more lies and bullshit.

$1:

7) Hamas has never stopped firing rockets into Israel

Jewish Daily Forward: "Hamas hadn't fired a single rocket since [2012 Gaza conflict], and had largely suppressed fire by smaller jihadi groups. Rocket firings, averaging 240 per month in 2007, dropped to five per month in 2013.

Well, isn't that something. Only 5 per month. That's barely one per week.

That should be ok, shouldn't it ?


hmmm, No, it's not ok.


Not.

Even.

One.


Hamas has never stopped firing rockets into Israel is still true,
and your apologist buddy is a fucking liar and bullshit artist.

[andyt]

Khar Khar:

I'm not dealing with the mess, but this conflict.

So if this time Israel was perfectly within its rights, can you point to a particular time when Hamas was perfectly within its rights to fire rockets or use suicide bombings?

Nuts to separate one ongoing conflict, that swells and ebbs, into distinct conflicts, assigning moral blamelessness to one side or the other. Exactly what Israel wants, however.

These are partners in a dance, one that neither side seems to want to end except on their terms. Sometimes they take a breather, sit out a song, maybe even have a talk, but soon enough, they're back doing the WaWatussi again.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

desertdude desertdude:

With all due respect Khar, that is just bullshit. This whole Gaza mess started when Hamas was elected fairly in Gaza and Israel went all ape shit, lay siege to Gaza by land sea and air. You're free to vote for anyone as long as we approve. So much for democracy in the Arab world, eh ? It doesn't work that way the example of the IRA is in front of you, until Britain sat down and talked to the IRA they did not achieve peace. Israel has tried everything including bombing the shit out of Gaza except talk.

Seriously? You're comparing the IRA to Hamas? . During the period 1969-1997 the PIRA killed about 80 innocent civilians, most of them quite unintentionally.
Anyone could see that killing innocents wasn't a tactic the IRA approved of, they merely wanted to show the British govt that they COULD kill civilians if they really wanted to.
The Palestinian leadership OTOH, has shown for the last 70 years that it's quite ready, willing and happy to murder innocent civilians, including children. Yet when their chickens come home to roost, suddenly it's a war crime.

There's another point about the whole IRA thing as well. It may have all started with the division of religion but ultimately it became about British military occupation and Irish autonomy.
With Israel-Palestine, the split of land was formed by a resolution of the UN, not by force of armed Israeli occupation. The Palestinians swore from Day 1 they would never abide by said UN resolution. And since the Palestinians LOVE to hide their weapons and ammo among public and civilian infrastructure, the only way to try and ensure they can't do that is to take the land and occupy it or bomb it into inhabitability.

And not to put too fine a point on things and make sure there's no questions of bias, my views and knowledge have dick all to do with ideologies. This falls purely onto my interest in military history and the history of warfare.
Let's go into the hypothetical and assume some major tensions between the US and Canada. If people had been firing rockets across the river from Windsor or Niagara Falls at non-military targets in the States for decades, I'd fully expect the US to stomp all over either of those cities until it stopped, or just occupy them altogether. You can't keep poking a bear and not expect it to rip your head off eventually.

Is Israel entirely innocent in all of this? Not a chance. But since their enemy has decided that the rules of "civilized" warfare are for pussies, it shouldn't come as much of a shocker when Israel finally says "fuck it!" and tosses the rule book away.
However, to suggest that Israel isn't interested in peace and never has been is deluded thinking at best.

It's interesting because if we look at Jordan, they stopped attacking Israel and got the land back that Israel took from them. Egypt, once they figured out that attacking Israel was not much different than committing military suicide, stopped attacking Israel and got their land back.
Palestine, keeps attacking Israel even after getting land back. As a result, Palestine keeps losing land.
Interesting how that works, eh?
The Palestinian leadership truly is insane. It keeps doing the same shit over and over again, expecting a different result.

I think the thing that's wobbling some people's minds about all of this is the fact that Israel has a very powerful military while Palestine doesn't so they look at Israel as the big bully. But that's been the Palestinian leadership's choice. There's no centralized military to speak of. There's no military bases (in the standard sense), no factories that make weapons. Weapons and ammo stores are cached in residential neighbourhoods and public buildings and their standard tactic is to attack civilian targets.
The fact that the Palestinian leadership has conducted its war playing this dangerous game has made de facto military targets out of any and all Palestinian territories and structures.

This leaves Israel in a tough spot, not just in how they conduct the war themselves but internationally as well, particularly in countries with predominantly left-wing media outlets and populations, like the EU nations and Canada.

[desertdude]

Trenacker Trenacker:

desertdude, the Huffington Post article leaves a lot to be desired in terms of its credibility. While it correctly and accurately points out that it is possible to credit Israel with a good portion of blame for the current situation, the article itself relies on a great many assertions and one-sided interpretations of the facts. I am happy to discuss in detail, if desired.

I don't agree with a lot in that article too, but I just let the article talk, mot everyone can take up Khar, if I did, I would not do anything else in my life other than read and respond to Khar's novel sized posts !!!

[desertdude]

Trenacker Trenacker:

In the end, it's hard for me to see where pressure can be applied to achieve a happy outcome. According to some analyses, the identity (and thus the future) of the Israeli state is a classic case of "insuperabability" -- in other words, an issue that has, historically, required war-making to solve because there cannot be compromise. Israel is either a Jewish state, or it isn't. Palestine is either sovereign, or it isn't. A democratic Israel won't be Israel from the point of view of many of its current citizens. A Palestine that has to make certain security guarantees to Israel won't actually be free from the point of view of many of its partisans.

The unfortunate truth is will the US blindly supporting Israel in everything it does, arming it and pouring billions of aid into it no matter what it does. Israel has no need to come to the peace table. It is no secret if it did not have such 100% unconditional support. It would be more willing to come to the peace table and accept a two state solution. Right now it just feigns willingness of peace, which cock blocking any serious attempt to peace. Israel has become to the US like the spoiled bratty teenager, but the parents still keeps buying it expensive cars and gadgets and sweeping its shit under the carpet and ignoring it. "Oh its just a phase, he'll grow out of it"

And that addresses the rest of your post, the solution is a two state solution. Israel can have its Jewish state and Palestine can be a sovereign nation at the same time. Of course a lot of issues have to be hammered out before that can happen.

[desertdude]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

desertdude desertdude:

With all due respect Khar, that is just bullshit. This whole Gaza mess started when Hamas was elected fairly in Gaza and Israel went all ape shit, lay siege to Gaza by land sea and air. You're free to vote for anyone as long as we approve. So much for democracy in the Arab world, eh ? It doesn't work that way the example of the IRA is in front of you, until Britain sat down and talked to the IRA they did not achieve peace. Israel has tried everything including bombing the shit out of Gaza except talk.

Seriously? You're comparing the IRA to Hamas? . During the period 1969-1997 the PIRA killed about 80 innocent civilians, most of them quite unintentionally.
Anyone could see that killing innocents wasn't a tactic the IRA approved of, they merely wanted to show the British govt that they COULD kill civilians if they really wanted to.
The Palestinian leadership OTOH, has shown for the last 70 years that it's quite ready, willing and happy to murder innocent civilians, including children. Yet when their chickens come home to roost, suddenly it's a war crime.

There's another point about the whole IRA thing as well. It may have all started with the division of religion but ultimately it became about British military occupation and Irish autonomy.
With Israel-Palestine, the split of land was formed by a resolution of the UN, not by force of armed Israeli occupation. The Palestinians swore from Day 1 they would never abide by said UN resolution. And since the Palestinians LOVE to hide their weapons and ammo among public and civilian infrastructure, the only way to try and ensure they can't do that is to take the land and occupy it or bomb it into inhabitability.

And not to put too fine a point on things and make sure there's no questions of bias, my views and knowledge have dick all to do with ideologies. This falls purely onto my interest in military history and the history of warfare.
Let's go into the hypothetical and assume some major tensions between the US and Canada. If people had been firing rockets across the river from Windsor or Niagara Falls at non-military targets in the States for decades, I'd fully expect the US to stomp all over either of those cities until it stopped, or just occupy them altogether. You can't keep poking a bear and not expect it to rip your head off eventually.

Is Israel entirely innocent in all of this? Not a chance. But since their enemy has decided that the rules of "civilized" warfare are for pussies, it shouldn't come as much of a shocker when Israel finally says "fuck it!" and tosses the rule book away.
However, to suggest that Israel isn't interested in peace and never has been is deluded thinking at best.

It's interesting because if we look at Jordan, they stopped attacking Israel and got the land back that Israel took from them. Egypt, once they figured out that attacking Israel was not much different than committing military suicide, stopped attacking Israel and got their land back.
Palestine, keeps attacking Israel even after getting land back. As a result, Palestine keeps losing land.
Interesting how that works, eh?
The Palestinian leadership truly is insane. It keeps doing the same shit over and over again, expecting a different result.

I think the thing that's wobbling some people's minds about all of this is the fact that Israel has a very powerful military while Palestine doesn't so they look at Israel as the big bully. But that's been the Palestinian leadership's choice. There's no centralized military to speak of. There's no military bases (in the standard sense), no factories that make weapons. Weapons and ammo stores are cached in residential neighbourhoods and public buildings and their standard tactic is to attack civilian targets.
The fact that the Palestinian leadership has conducted its war playing this dangerous game has made de facto military targets out of any and all Palestinian territories and structures.

This leaves Israel in a tough spot, not just in how they conduct the war themselves but internationally as well, particularly in countries with predominantly left-wing media outlets and populations, like the EU nations and Canada.

PA9, there are a lot of points I would like to address in your post but you pepper it with so much non-sensical BS, it better to just ignore it, as I do with majority of FD and Martys posts.

[desertdude]

And Khar I will try to get back to you, once I gather the stamina !!

P.S : MODs, why not merge this with the other thread

[andyt]

desertdude desertdude:

And Khar I will try to get back to you, once I gather the stamina !!

P.S : MODs, why not merge this with the other thread

Just boil down what Khar is saying to it's basic essence and debate that. If you try to match him point by point, you'll just have these huge posts back and forth. Khar likes to argue each tree separately, never seems to see the forest. AS I said, it can lead to "rational" decisions, taken out of context that are totally nuts if you do take the wider context into account.

[andyt]

But Hamas, just as the PLO, is being idiotic. I guess they figure if they can rile up Israel enough to kill enough Gazans, it will shift world opinion.

But there's a much better way. Renounce violence. Then, organize the people for mass peaceful demonstrations. Give plenty of notice to world media. Then march on the blockades. No throwing rocks or other violence. Some people might get killed doing so, but Hamas seems to have a great tolerance for it's own civilians getting killed anyway. Want to see world opinion shift when there are no rockets being fired, no arms taken up, just peaceful demonstrators being killed by Israel. Might even get the US to back off support for Israel as even US jews get squeamish.

Never happen, unfortunately. The Palestinians just don't seem to think that way. And even in the US, the civil rights groups couldn't keep it up, gave rise to the Panthers etc, which lost all sympathy. The great strides forward in the US came from the peaceful demonstrators, not the tough guy Panthers. The latter may have scared some white folks, but mostly they just had everybody turn off.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

desertdude desertdude:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

desertdude desertdude:

With all due respect Khar, that is just bullshit. This whole Gaza mess started when Hamas was elected fairly in Gaza and Israel went all ape shit, lay siege to Gaza by land sea and air. You're free to vote for anyone as long as we approve. So much for democracy in the Arab world, eh ? It doesn't work that way the example of the IRA is in front of you, until Britain sat down and talked to the IRA they did not achieve peace. Israel has tried everything including bombing the shit out of Gaza except talk.

Seriously? You're comparing the IRA to Hamas? . During the period 1969-1997 the PIRA killed about 80 innocent civilians, most of them quite unintentionally.
Anyone could see that killing innocents wasn't a tactic the IRA approved of, they merely wanted to show the British govt that they COULD kill civilians if they really wanted to.
The Palestinian leadership OTOH, has shown for the last 70 years that it's quite ready, willing and happy to murder innocent civilians, including children. Yet when their chickens come home to roost, suddenly it's a war crime.

There's another point about the whole IRA thing as well. It may have all started with the division of religion but ultimately it became about British military occupation and Irish autonomy.
With Israel-Palestine, the split of land was formed by a resolution of the UN, not by force of armed Israeli occupation. The Palestinians swore from Day 1 they would never abide by said UN resolution. And since the Palestinians LOVE to hide their weapons and ammo among public and civilian infrastructure, the only way to try and ensure they can't do that is to take the land and occupy it or bomb it into inhabitability.

And not to put too fine a point on things and make sure there's no questions of bias, my views and knowledge have dick all to do with ideologies. This falls purely onto my interest in military history and the history of warfare.
Let's go into the hypothetical and assume some major tensions between the US and Canada. If people had been firing rockets across the river from Windsor or Niagara Falls at non-military targets in the States for decades, I'd fully expect the US to stomp all over either of those cities until it stopped, or just occupy them altogether. You can't keep poking a bear and not expect it to rip your head off eventually.

Is Israel entirely innocent in all of this? Not a chance. But since their enemy has decided that the rules of "civilized" warfare are for pussies, it shouldn't come as much of a shocker when Israel finally says "fuck it!" and tosses the rule book away.
However, to suggest that Israel isn't interested in peace and never has been is deluded thinking at best.

It's interesting because if we look at Jordan, they stopped attacking Israel and got the land back that Israel took from them. Egypt, once they figured out that attacking Israel was not much different than committing military suicide, stopped attacking Israel and got their land back.
Palestine, keeps attacking Israel even after getting land back. As a result, Palestine keeps losing land.
Interesting how that works, eh?
The Palestinian leadership truly is insane. It keeps doing the same shit over and over again, expecting a different result.

I think the thing that's wobbling some people's minds about all of this is the fact that Israel has a very powerful military while Palestine doesn't so they look at Israel as the big bully. But that's been the Palestinian leadership's choice. There's no centralized military to speak of. There's no military bases (in the standard sense), no factories that make weapons. Weapons and ammo stores are cached in residential neighbourhoods and public buildings and their standard tactic is to attack civilian targets.
The fact that the Palestinian leadership has conducted its war playing this dangerous game has made de facto military targets out of any and all Palestinian territories and structures.

This leaves Israel in a tough spot, not just in how they conduct the war themselves but internationally as well, particularly in countries with predominantly left-wing media outlets and populations, like the EU nations and Canada.

PA9, there are a lot of points I would like to address in your post but you pepper it with so much non-sensical BS, it better to just ignore it, as I do with majority of FD and Martys posts.

Hmm there are points you'd like to address but you won't. Sounds like a tap out to me. You can try to ignore the reality all you want but facts are facts.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

So if this time Israel was perfectly within its rights, can you point to a particular time when Hamas was perfectly within its rights to fire rockets or use suicide bombings?

Nuts to separate one ongoing conflict, that swells and ebbs, into distinct conflicts, assigning moral blamelessness to one side or the other. Exactly what Israel wants, however.

These are partners in a dance, one that neither side seems to want to end except on their terms. Sometimes they take a breather, sit out a song, maybe even have a talk, but soon enough, they're back doing the WaWatussi again.

You'd have been a box of laughs had you lived during WW2 and been utterly inable to fathom a difference between the various parties in that conflict.

[andyt]

YOu mean like how the Israelis are copying the policy of "Lebensraum" which itself is based on Manifest Destiny. No wonder you support them. Just shitty American ideas causing grief all over the place.