|
It wouldn't surprise me if Hamas was behind it, but it's hella suspect that the Netanyahu government has been pushing the Hamas line since day 1, up to the point where even the administration response to finding the teenagers dead and offering condolences specifically named Hamas as the perpetrators, like they feel the need to keep pushing it at every opportunity and beyond. If they have proof, they should offer it.
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
It's also beyond the pale that already the amount of suffering inflicted by Israel in searching for three teenagers and now punishing (???) Hamas has already been double the deaths among Palestinians and is definitely going to keep climbing into at least the teens.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Was there even a token effort at a joint criminal investigation with the Palestinians, or was this all just calls for blood and saber rattling from the beginning? I only caught wind of this story within the last few days. Take a guess, then a drink. I'm taking a break from poo poo today so I'll be taking a shot for every airstrike I see reported in Gaza.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That won't happen while the Occupation is in existence. I sure as hell don't see it with Jewish kids now. These attitudes are actually shifting. I don't have any articles on hand, but I remember a few years back there was a flurry of articles about how Western Jewish people were growing disaffected with Israel due to the occupation (at least in part).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
And stepping up to the plate, here's Kombo- wait. [Sound of shuffled papers, fights breaking out in background between staffers]
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's great, but it doesn't affect what Jewish Israelis think, and that is the constituency you need to deal with. Correct, however Israel has maintained its population growth with immigration from Jews abroad, which seems to be falling off among Western Jews as they become alienated from the state; further, if Jews abroad stop supporting Israel it raises the possibility of American (America being either the #1 or #2 most populous Jewish country depending on your math) support dropping off, both of which are game-changers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The people who actually move to Israel and then stay there self-select to be able to deal with the racist bullshit, and are going to a Jewish state anyway. Even if all of them left you have a hard core of a few millions who are not going anywhere without a fight. Right! But that's still not the same thing as an unassailable majority backed up by immigration and the world superpower. If American support drops off, the whole thing goes South-Africa shaped in short order.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:No, because there is a Palestinian Authority waiting to take over a state, and there is an international consensus that the Israelis get to be whatever assholes they want if they withdraw to the Green Line. So that is a much likelier choice on their part. That's not true though? About the consensus. That's not an actual thing the international community has expressed. New Division posted:Eh, I doubt it. I don't think Americans will turn against Israel anytime soon, though I forsee a great deal more skepticism towards Israeli hawkishness. I also don't think the immigration factor is as important as you make it out to be at all. What? No, of course not! This is on the timeframe of decades, at best. Right now Israel is basically unstoppable, naturally.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Could be a good way for ISIL to burn off the psychos. ISIL can't afford to fall behind its rivals in its psycho stockpiles.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 both acknowledge Israel within the Green Line borders. The Saudi Initiative, signed by all Arab League and all Organization of Islamic Countries states (including Iran!) acknowledge Israel within the Green Line. Any negotiation under the auspices of the US or the Quartet has always accepted Israel within the Green Line. Is there another expression of international consensus that I am missing here? There's a difference between recognizing Israel within the context of them withdrawing from the Occupied Territories and just letting Israel be "whatever assholes they want" as long as the occupation ends.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Well, I'll qualify that in saying that the international community has been very reluctant to actually intervene in the assholery of member states up to a certain level, which Israel not granting its Arab citizens the same rights as Jews but allowing them to vote and have quite a few of the same civil rights does not reach. I don't see an international equivalent of the 101 Airborne desegregating a school in Little Rock. No, you're definitely right. But it's important to recognize that Israel/Palestine has a unique position in international diplomacy (being the subject of a HUGE amount of UN resolutions) and I don't see that fading from international view even after a hypothetical Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. The U.N. is hypervigilant about issues developing in that region, and if post-withdrawal Israel continues to be militarily adventurous in Palestine or other neighboring countries, I don't see the U.N. (hypothetical future-UN) and the international community deciding that because they don't have soldiers on the ground in Hebron anymore they'll just let it slide. Maybe that's optimistic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Even in the complete absence of information it should be pretty easy to say that an Israeli false-flag is not a very likely outcome
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Trolls trolling trolls. For whom the bell the trolls. It trolls for thee.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You are doing more than that, though: you are dismissing the whole thing as European colonialism and conquest, when the actual fact of the matter is a lot more subtle. After all, European colonialism could have simply granted Faisal his Greater Syria with at most a small protectorate for some European Jews, or a post-Ottoman order without European conquest could still have seen mass migration followed by ethnic struggle and a Jewish ethnocracy. You are speaking as if Jews were just planted there as a natural part of a European agenda. In his defense, Lebanon was chopped off of Syria pretty much at the whim of France, so there are easy parallels to draw.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:They loosened the blockade by about 20%, but not as much as Hamas wanted them to (a return to the PLO levels). Hamas prevented most of the rocket attacks, but not completely. Israel wanted to negotiate a prisoner swap, but Hamas wasn't willing to do that and basically felt they had already made enough concessions by consenting to the ceasefire. Also, I'd heard differing accounts of what broke the truce. Was constructing the tunnel specifically against the wording of the ceasefire, or was it just assumed to be? Because I can see it going both ways, with the Israelis viewing the tunnel itself as a violation and Hamas viewing the attack on the tunnel as the violation, depending on the wording.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
So then if the ceasefire was an informal agreement with no written conditions, it seems to me the only real indicator that you want to end the ceasefire would be.. to start shooting. Which Israel did, not Hamas. Unless you view digging tunnels as uniquely provocative, which eh, Hamas had a bunch of smuggling tunnels already. Unless you're suggesting it was like, a sapper tunnel?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Hamas isn't the only armed group that operates in the Gaza strip, though? The fact that an irregular force- one with only informal and semiformal lines of communication, and no clear chain of command with other groups- is able to exert that much influence for enforcing a ceasefire is actually kinda impressive. illrepute fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Oh totally, and the IDF understood that Hamas didn't have perfect control over all the people who firing rockets. Which is why they didn't end the ceasefire, and asked Hamas to continue the ceasefire even in December after being bombarded with 1,000 rockets. But Hamas refused. ...Because the IDF, which is not a decentralized group, attacked one of its tunnels?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Because Hamas didn't want to make concessions during negotiations - having consolidated their recent power over Gaza and seeing the ceasefire as the only concession they were willing to make - and used a minor skirmish and their dissatisfaction with the increase in border traffic as an excuse for a return to war. If you're waiting for some kind of perfect ceasefire where there aren't any mistakes or misperceptions, and the troops and civilians are totally regimented, then you're going to be waiting a very long time. Ok, but what makes you think this, instead of the fairly straightforward logical chain of "the IDF attacked one of our tunnels -> ceasefire over"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Why do you call them "Palastines"?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:If you're a lurker of this thread or an interested party of any kind and want to read something actually worthwhile about the recent history of Palestine rather than endless bitching, this is a fantastic book http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleans...ng+of+palestine Right now I'm actually reading Living by the Sword, by Stephen Green. It was written in the late 80s but the information it has is still very good. I never knew about the conflicts between Israeli forces and the Americans doing peacekeeping in Lebanon until I read it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I encourage everyone to install the app "Red Alert: Israel" on their iOS device (dunno if there is an android app). I just did this yesterday to experience get even a glimpse at the daily terror that the Palestinians are bringing to the civil population. It gives you an alert everytime rockets are flying to attack civilians in Israel. I actually do agree with you, it must be terrifying to know there's a chance, however remote, that someone you love could be hurt or killed by a missile from afar. It must be nice to be an Israeli that has the Iron Dome and bomb shelters to duck into. I'm sure Palestinians wish they were so lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Have you not seen the death tolls for women and children in Gaza from Israeli airstrikes? Not exactly surgical precision. It's indiscriminate. Even if it was surgical, Gaza is one of the most densely-populated areas on the planet. If you know you're about to bomb a crate packed with human beings and do it anyway, you can't pretend your shells vaporizing huddled families are just unfortunate accidents. tatankatonk posted:Hellbeard, how many terrorists were thwarted when the Israeli Air Force bombed two UN schools acting as refugee centers in Jan. 2009, which resulted in 50 people being killed, including seven children? What is the acceptable ratio of terrorists-to-children that justifies bombing civilian centers? Mods, please change thread title to this: 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Kaislioc posted:Yes, pretty much. If you want terrorist groups to disarm at some point you're going to talk to them. A 98% reduction is pretty nuts, considering that Hamas is only one of several groups operating in the strip. It's the largest, but doesn't have a complete monopoly on rockets. Consider this: In order for Hamas to enforce the ceasefire, they would have had to go to the other groups and actively persuade them not to fire rockets at Israel, which, from the look of it, they largely succeeded at. When was the last time the Israeli government persuaded the IDF not to blow up Palestinians?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Cool Bear posted:*scans long list of names of civilians killed by super power military strength* You forgot about the crew on the U.S.S Liberty, Rachel Corrie, the Turks on the Gaza Flotilla boat, everyone on LNF 114, and probably a bunch more I can't recall off the top of my head.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Hellbeard posted:What options are there? Hellbeard posted:Should we accept being bombarded simply because the enemy is so cowardly as to imbed itself in civilian areas with the intent of causing harm to it's own constituents? Hellbeard posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMO-_qEpgg0 Kaal posted:Should they buy rockets from Iran and fire them at their attackers instead? It seems to me that you'd object to that sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Where's Kombotron when you need him? I got the loving posting bloodlust tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Both sides keep the conflict going. Palestinians just have more to lose and more reason to make the tough choices required to end it. Actually, looking at it from the perspective who isn't completely doolala, it looks like the status quo overwhelmingly supports the Israelis in every possible way, including military, economic, and political domination, so a negotiated peace requiring concessions from both sides would actually cause them to lose far more than they gain in exchange for something they consider completely worthless: Palestinian security, peace, and prosperity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That shouldn't be news to anyone. Palestinians need the peace a lot more than the Israelis do, and need it more every year, and that weakness will extend into what negotiations they eventually participate in. Which is precisely why they need to bring this conflict to the negotiating table as fast as humanly possible. It's said that the last intifada pulled back Palestinians by 20 years, how much damage would a third one cause them? I don't think they can afford to find out. They have, many times. And each time, the negotiations have been torpedoed by Israeli intransigence. It's almost like... because the status quo benefits Israel... they're willing to just let them stew and hope they go away, occasionally beating them down with their insane military might when they get too riled up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Also I'm laughing if the best you can come up with is "You're right! The Palestinians are being murdered ruthlessly by the IDF, which is why they should be even more willing to surrender!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Just wondering, but with how much Israel has the Gaza Strip boxed in, where exactly are Hamas supposed to go that isn't "embedded" in the civilian population? It's smaller than a lot of major cities. The sea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Lessail posted:Uhhhh .. . . I think... it is actually you, that is completely broken, lol. Careful with those capitals and periods, friend! We all have to do our part to avoid probations  Kaal posted:But the "Demographic Bomb" doesn't exist. The short and long-term population projections within Israel foresee solid Jewish majorities. The entire concept relied on the idea that Israel would annex the entire Palestinian population living in Gaza and the West Bank, not to mention those in Jordan and Lebanon. But that doesn't seem likely to ever happen. And all those people living stateless in the Occupied Territories and in refugee camps will definitely just go away, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:No they definitely won't. But they also definitely won't be members of the Israeli electorate. That isn't a tolerable existence, which is why the apartheid system it enforces must eventually collapse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Oh I agree that it isn't a tolerable existence, but that still isn't going to make them Israeli citizens. History is pretty clear about life not being fair. Which is again why Palestinians need to seek out a peace process, and it's also why there's little support amongst the Palestinian population for further violence. I see. So you agree that Israel's actions- both in its settlement policies, its military adventurism, and so on- are wrong? Because over the course of this thread you've gone from defending Israel to imploring the Palestinians to please, surrender! This mad brute won't stop until it has tasted your heartsblood! And I'm much more interested in whether or not you genuinely have changed your mind than chasing your tail in circles ad infinitum.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There is no support for the one state solution, either in Palestine or in Israel. It's a Western idea that was engendered by Truman back in the Forties, and it will stay in the West. Right, because Western ideas certainly never can impact the facts on the ground in Isr- I mean, Mandatory Palestine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't see recognition of the basic realities of the conflict as being a "defense" of anyone. If I point out that the Syrian rebels have killed civilians am I "defending" Assad? Of course not. The only difference is that this thread treats anyone that is damning Israel as a blood-traitor. So you agree that Israel's occupation is wrong, and that the military campaigns launched against Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, etc. are wrong, and the massive civilian casualties inflicted by insanely disproportionate IDF strikes, are wrong? This is a yes/no question, fyi.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If you think those are yes/no questions, then you lack the political awareness to be talking about conflict. What I see is a worm trying to wriggle his way out his own rhetorical noose.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Is the occupation of another country wrong? How about launching airstrikes on civilians? I dunno, it's a complicated situation. Anyway, I'm still waiting on your answer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Kaal posted:What noose? You propose a meaningless black and white take on a super complex 100-year conflict and then celebrate some kind of rhetorical victory when it is inevitably rejected? Ok sure, you "win". It's definitely not meaningless to apply moral judgment to a situation in which a superior military force, as you've yourself stated, is inflicting vastly disproportionate casualties on civilian populations, refuses to negotiate ceasefires in good faith, and then continues to demand it be recognized as moral. So I'm going to ask you again, is it wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Israel was brought into the world after 50 years of trying and two world wars. And they are now far, far more entrenched than the Arabs ever were. How are you planning to replicate those conditions? Probably the same way other Apartheid governments, other totalitarian, sectarian governments did: protests, insurrection, and blood. Hopefully they'll take the South Africa option before they become even more a pariah. Because in twenty years we won't be comparing Israel to South Africa, we'll be comparing South Africa to Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:42
|
|