|
Eu Diplomat: EU is against BDS https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-settlement-goods-welcome-europe-says-eu-envoy There's been some discussion ITT about why people don't hold everyone else to the same standards they hold Israel - the double-standards indicator of antisemitism. That's already mostly been addressed but given the reaction in the EU and the US to BDS, how about we pose the question somewhat differently? Why is Israel not held to the same standards as other nations? When Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, a global coalition forced it out and destroyed Iraq. It then placed Iraq under years of brutal sanctions. In 2003, it was invaded again and the government destroyed. Now, aside from the rise of the likes of ISIS as a direct result of this, why hasn't Israel been held to the same standards as Iraq in the last 50 years?
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jul 27, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Here's a rather odd story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-t-exist.html Christ that article is awful. Can't decide if this 'palace' costs £8m or £9m. Seems to be huge leaps between aid money and directly spending it on palaces and 'terrorists' (apparently anyone rotting in an Israeli prison). It says the palace is being built in 'Sudra'. It means 'Surda, Ramallah' and is a government building. You can find more details about it here - http://www.pecdar.org/etemplate.php?id=840. What's silly is £8m or £9m for a government building is practically nothing - does it come from foreign aid? Who knows? What were the terms of the foreign aid? Who knows. Because you're reading the Daily Mail. e: in fact if it is from foreign aid I would guess it's tied up with the aid description as the PECDAR website is hideously broken in Arabic and ongoing projects only listed in English - http://www.pecdar.org/etemplate.php?id=840 ^^ - Half-Palestinian Brit already a better journalist than anyone at the Daily Mail. Hong XiuQuan fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:gently caress if I knew. What I do know is that foreign governments being shown to provide care packages to convicted murderers of the unambiguously naughty kind (specifically the guys who murdered the Fogel family) has the potential of becoming a PR nightmare for Israeli human rights groups who receive a lot of funding from those governments as well. Can you show me where that article has illustrated that 'foreign governments [ie Britain] [have been] shown to provide care packages to convicted murderers of the unambiguously naughty kind'? Also how exactly does this impact eg Btselem?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Eh, we did that stuff to Iraq, but it was also a really bad idea and we shouldn't have. I don't think it's a good idea to levy such heavy sanctions on Israel it results in a bunch of people dying or being forced into poverty, much less going to war with them. The best "punishment" is to just cease aid and maybe institute sanctions for stuff that isn't necessary for human life. My point was less that it was a good idea and more prodding the framing of discussion :P What you've just stated is basically the BDS movement boycott (settlement goods), divest (from Israeli companies and others complicit in settlements) and sanctions (use economic levers on the occupying state). A weapons sanction alone could probably move mountains. No need to go as far as banning graphite and medicine!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:I think you answered your own question. Both practically and ethically, what was done to Iraq was wrong. Doing the same to Israel under the reasoning of applying the same standards would just result in repeated mistakes. I don't believe in tough sanctions because I'm a bleeding-heart but clearly the US, EU etc do. CF Iran. The point about double-standards stands.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:Is the country self-sufficient food-wise? I mean, the population of Israel isn't huge, but the country isn't very big either. The boycott tends to be of produce from the illegal settlements or companies investing in the settlements. If Israel has to rely on illegal settlement produce for subsistence then it's in very big trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:That's extremely difficult to prove. The Israel lobby is so powerful that Bush I laughed at them, and they couldn't get support for Obama's Syria resolution. The fact is that they were never really that powerful, they just had two presidents in Clinton and Bush II who were very amenable to their position, and it looks like a third in Clinton II. Therefore, any claims like the ones from Mearsheimer or Weiss are so self-evidently false as to be laughable. And given the subject matter, that this is a gigantic trope that has existed throughout the ages, the subject is a loving third rail and should not be approached without the utmost care. Are you joking? Under Obama, Israel has had a hilariously easy ride, no matter how many times Netanyahu and his government have spat in his face. The lobby made the Iran deal incredibly difficult for Obama and he still crops up at AIPAC podiums. That you think George Bush 'laughed' at the lobby is fine but doesn't speak at all to the current power of the lobby. Acting as though it's so ineffectual "because Syria" doesn't explain why the current Democrat frontrunner desperately talking about what she'll do for Israel and how naughty Palestinians are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
The hilarious thing is Oren stepped in to remind everyone that Israel slaughtered 2,000 civilians and wounded 10,000. Kind of making Sanders' point for him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I think the story about Israeli politics right now is less a wide scale turn to the right, and more political empowerment of the Mizrahim who literally hate Muslims due to being ethnically cleansed by them in the past century. Except all the data point to the opposite, unless you are claiming mizrahim are about 65% of the population? I also have a problem with someone saying 'savage minority have a problem with another savage minority that's kinda justified because of x'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Except you're 100% wrong. Remember your original claim about it being less about Israeli shift to the right and more about Mizrahim being right-wing? When 65% of Israelis think that a soldier who executed a wounded man 'did nothing wrong' it would suggest to me that there has been a massive shift to the right in Israel. Whether with Mizrahim or Ashkenazim. The fact that Mizrahim may be a little more to the right of an already far-right spectrum is meaningless. When heads of 'leftist' parties are espousing ideas that would have been considered practically Kahanist in the 1990s then you can't just point to Mizrahim and say 'well, Muslims' fault for kicking them out I guess'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
When you think everything is antisemitism, you'll see antisemitism everywhere. Meanwhile Israel is making another 200 illegal homes in the west bank for illegal settlers and settlers can shittalk with impunity outside the trial of settler murderers: https://www.facebook.com/afnan.yosef/posts/10206514438521957
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:El'or Azaria, the executioner from Tel Rumeyda, has been officially indicted with manslaughter by the military prosecutor. Utterly ridiculous that it's not a murder charge.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Manslaughter is the equivalent of murder of the second degree, maximum punishment 20 years in the big house. It's a serious accusation. And yet murder carries a life sentence with minimum 30 years sentence. I'm not convinced that premeditation in Israeli law is so different to malice aforethought in UK law.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You have two options as far as Palestinian governance and they're both lovely in their own ways. If Israel were to throw up their hands and say, welp, no partner, guess it's full steam ahead with settlements you'd complain too. This is quite literally the stance of the Israeli government at the moment. Ron Dermer in 2010 - Israel has no partner to peace - http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-s-patience-with-abbas-has-run-out-says-wikileaks-cable-1.331680 Ya'alon in 2015 - Abbas is no partner - http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-warns-hamas-not-to-escalate-terror-says-abbas-no-partner/ Netanyahu in 2015 - 'We are always willing to talk [...] we have no illusions about Abu Mazen.' http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/netanyahu-abbas-handshake-climate/418092/ This is nothing new. Avi Shlaim has covered extraordinarily well Israel's cyclical approach to negotiations. Start to negotiate. Undermine partner. Declare partner is no real partner. Refuse to negotiate while pretending to negotiate until partner disappears or the matter is forced by the potential partner or a third party. You can apply this to nearly any Israeli political negotiation with a neighbouring country in the last 65 years and see it in action. Abu Mazen will die or retire at some point and his successor will probably become more palatable for a while, more open to de facto concessions and continuing to control the populace in Israel's father. Until he (or she) gets uppity about a Palestinian state. Then negotiations will stall. And this partner will become no partner. Repeat until bantustans or ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:accountable. Hmmm.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So maybe wrong place to ask but what's the deal with all this talk about antisemitism in the UKs Labour Party? https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-israel-lobby-manufactured-uk-labour-partys-anti-semitism-crisis/16481
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Accountable to their superior officers who take responsibility for their command, not to some international body or to you personally. Israeli soldiers pretty clearly meet this criteria. Terrorist groups like Hamas generally don't. I'm not sure you understand what 'accountable' means in its generally-understood sense. Also: quote:And yes, intention is a large part of criminal culpability, war crimes or otherwise. There is a difference between moral culpability and legal culpability and when it does come down to legal culpability it's not just a matter of literal intent but involves concepts such as recklessness.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:the fact that Israel is focused on disproportionately by the UN. I hear this said quite a lot and then I have to remind myself that Iraq was destroyed on the basis of what Israel has been doing freely for 50 years.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Just saw an article on Haaretz (in Hebrew, sorry) about the segregation in the delivery wards. A group started putting up billboards near hospitals telling them to stop the segregation. The first one was put up at Kfar Saba, but was taken down in less than a day because apparently it was offensive? Guys, it's not apartheid. Honest. We give Arabs the same rights but you've got to admit, public services, businesses etc need a little discretion right? I mean, if different people want to drink at different fountains, why not?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Since this has already led to at least one derail in one prior incarnation of this thread, I am singling this out: please do not propagate conspiracy theories. Malice was rejected by several US investigations, which all point to negligence, You mean gross negligence. Whether it's considered intentional or not, it still stands as an example of why Israel is considered crazy and unpredictable. Other examples include Deir Yassin, executions of POWs the Lavon Affair (instability of internal Israeli politics - cf The Iron Wall, Avi Shlaim), the threat to use nuclear weapons in 1973, the killing of thousands of civilians in 1982, 'break their bones' 1987-1991, the executions of POWs in 1956, the 1956 war, the executions of hundreds of POWs in 1967 (cf Unit Shaked), the elections of Begin, Shamir, Sharon etc. But let's assume all that causes too many derails to worry about. Stuff that's happening now is worrying enough. The expansion of settlements, the labelling of anyone who opposes Israel as a new Hitler (any Arab/Persian leader, any resistance movement, many regional critics), its bellicosity towards Iraq, Syria and Iran, extrajudicial killings (and not just of teenagers armed with knives/unarmed) etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Think of every "joke" about how the Jews should just go back to Europe and the ignorance it betrays of where Israeli Jews actually originated. For a significant chunk of Israel's past, yes, European Jews were a majority. Which is important because Israel started life as an essentially European colonialist project. That Mizrahim are now a majority doesn't change the state's history. When people say 'Maybe they should go back to Europe', I think the essential point here is that when talking about Palestinians it takes some chutzpah to make suggestions about what they should do, accept or where they should go.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:"Palestinians are not shown in Israeli text books. Ok, they're shown, but they're depicted as terrorists. Ok, they're shown as something other than terrorists, but they're stereotypical, with no resemblance to real life (showing a Bedouin in traditional garb - I can literally walk down to the center of my town and take a picture of a Bedouin who looks like that). Ok, all / none of the above, and they're described as a 'problem'". Google 'Pallywood'. There's your modern Protocols.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
XMNN posted:a year without any palestinian doing anything that anyone could construe as violent is such a ridiculously high standard that the entire "plan" is laughable Do you remember the several months of peace that Israel rewarded with a devastating war?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2018 11:49
|
|
|
With all the events in the press recently and the typical responses I've seen on social media, I'd like to posit that you should consider yourself or what you say as antipalestinian and racist, if you suggest or say: 1) Pallywood - the idea that Palestinians organise to fake deaths and injuries at scale - and the use of hollywood implies an industrial scale - to implicate innocent Israeli soldiers, is a fundamentally racist trope 2) Palestinians put themselves in harm's way for money - the idea that Palestinians simply want to be shot so they or their families can get a few shekels. Soldiers don't want to do it, it's really the Palestinians forcing them to do it. 3) Assuming that a dead or wounded Palestinian brought it on himself - healthy skepticism is good. When your assumptions are that there must be another explanation - you are assuming that Israeli soldiers must be innocent by virtue of being Israeli and that Palestinians must have somehow brought it on themselves 4) Well, they did elect Hamas - this is not a death sentence. Nor is it an obstacle to peace. Israelis have elected and dealt with various unsavouries in the past. Assuming that a Palestinian loses his or her innocence because Hamas exists is racist. 5) They don't love their children - don't even think it. Sure sign of a racist. 6) There's two sides to this - there's no parity. The Palestinians' land is occupied, the Palestinians' have a separate code of justice applied to them. There is no equality of arms here. If you follow hearing every Israeli crime with 'but the Palestinians instigated it', you're probably a racist. 7) The Palestinians are itching to destroy us/Israelis if they have a chance - the Palestinians have plenty to be aggrieved about. Assuming they all want to murder you is, simply, racist. There's plenty more to think about but it's a start.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How do you square this with people arguing that Israeli civilians are legitimate targets because they support a government that targets and oppresses Palestinians? I don't. Civilians *anywhere* are never legitimate 'targets'. Armed illegal settlers are a different situation in my mind but because they tend to have entire families with them I still don't support military action against them. quote:Why do you think that equality of arms has any bearing on moral rightness of combatants' actions? Because a nuclear power with overwhelming military advantage should be expected to observe fully the rules of warfare when engaging in military activities against a subjugated population. That elements within the subjugated population resist with patently illegal acts, should not open up widescale bombing, killings, retributions etc. The painting of both sides as equal is part and parcel of portraying Palestinians as evil; a unique threat that must be stopped. For if both sides are equal, why is only one launching rockets at houses? quote:Why do you find pointing out that there are Palestinians who want to kill/punish Israelis and Israelis who want to kill/punish Palestinians objectionable? Defusing or marginalizing this bad blood would be necessary for any durable solution. Read what I said again. There's a difference between saying 'Mohammed bin Abdullah Al-Nablusi said he wants to kill all Israelis. Here, look at what he said. This worries me.' Not racist. 'Palestinians want to kill Jews.' Racist. Equally, 'Jews eat Palestinian babies'. Racist. 'Moshe Zimmerman said that Palestinians are crocodiles who must be destroyed'. Not racist. There's temptation to say 'well, there's racism on both sides, therefore' or 'racism seems more prevalent among the Palestinians'. Regarding the former, equality of arms comes back into the equation - the fact that the Israeli government is super racist and has overwhelming military power is deeply problematic. Regarding the latter - that's generally a racist take, although the person holding it might not be racist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:How dare you hold a state that receives massive diplomatic and financial support from your own nation to a higher standard than already sanctioned pariahs. When this happens in the UK, I'll ask: 1) Is there a Labour Friends of Syria or Conservative Friends of Syria who campaign on behalf of Assad's covernment? 2) Is Assad repeatedly lauded on the pages of major British newspapers and news services? 3) Do Assad's spokespeople get routine access to TV news to espouse their views? 4) Are Assad's crimes routinely defended as non-crimes or defensible acts from broadsheets to tabloids to parliament? 5) Do puff pieces about Syrian food, history etc routinely appear on daytime television? 6) Are enemies of Assad shut out from mainstream coverage? 7) Does the UN repeatedly defend Assad and his right to exist? 8) Does the US repeatedly veto criticism of Assad? 9) When Russian vetos take place, are they presented critically or as a necessary defence against a bias in the UN? 10) When Assad commits heinous crimes, is it commonly accepted that 'well, other countries are bad too' is an appropriate answer?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's like you've never heard of (factions of) Momentum, UKIP, Robert Fisk, or the myriad other Assad apologists. Tell you what, quote exactly what you're responding to and highlight any wording you're trying to disagree with and I'll happily respond to what you're trying to say. While other posters are flabbergasted at your dishonest, just in case anybody else hasn't heard of what you're name-dropping: 1) Robert Fisk is an old journalist who made his name for reporting in Lebanon around the time Israel invaded and committed several war crimes. Over the last decade or so he's lost a lot of his reputation, precisely because he's seen as cosying up to Assad and, well, being a bit corrupt. He's essentially kept on at the Independent, a former newspaper, now website, with a tiny readership. Probably as a bit of furniture but also probably because of Lebvedev. He is widely and rightly considered extreme fringe when it comes to Syria. 2) UKIP, or the UK Independence Party, is a single-issue party dedicated to the UK leaving the European Union. UKIP has no members of Parliament and, while it has historically been able to win a reasonable vote share, it's never had more MPs than you can count on one hand. An MP is a a UK representative in our national assembly, the House of Commons (part of the Houses of Parliament). There are over 600 of them. UKIP has no voice. And any voice it has had historically has been dedicated to the EU. KJI is likely confusing UKIP with its former leader, notorious oval office, Nigel Farage. Farage has never won a seat in Parliament, despite trying seven times (and failing). He's widely considered racist but probably the more acceptable face of facism. He's cosying up to Russia and Trump atm but he has no voice in British politics at the moment. Can we ask mods to ensure that when KJI responds to stuff, he actually details what he's responding to so we can debate properly? Coming in and sniping at innocent protest posts without any specific target is a little meta.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
Dommolus Magnus posted:Doesn't he still get invited to all the loving talkshows? Not so much since the last election. I don't think he's been on QT. He admittedly has an LBC slot but so does Maajid Nawaz.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:https://972mag.com/once-charged-with-killing-palestinian-teen-two-israeli-soldiers-will-walk-free/135955/ Wow. We prosecute so few cases that we can't prosecute any more. Purity of justice right there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:They cut off her final words. I don’t think this has got enough attention. They cut off hose final words and have been sharing it through official accounts and hasbara monkeys as showing that she was a human shield for ‘terrorists’. That she was no angel. That she deserved to die or, at least, brought it on herself. A Palestinian, even when clearly murdered, is less than human to the Israeli state. On an individual basis, how is the soldier who murdered her, the commander who ‘knows where every bullet goes’, the propaganda people who put out lies to defame her in death, the trolls who attack every thread memorialising her better than any random Nazi in the 1930s? Netanyahu’s Willing Executioners.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Where can I find the original video? https://twitter.com/joedyke/status/1004681270654390272?s=21
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:BDS ultimately is a blip either way, but has to be opposed for moral reasons. There was demonstrable progress in the 90s towards peace, progress that the BDS movement (and similar anti-peace movements like Likud) strongly disavow and oppose. It's a movement that desires a full on, hot, active conflict. You know what a 'hot' conflict is, right? You're suggesting that wanting boycotts, divestment and sanctions means desiring a 'hot' conflict. Tell me what methods of peaceful pressure you think aren't equivalent to 'desiring hot, active conflict'? Tell me why you think it matters if people use entirely peaceful means while 'desiring hot, active conflict'?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I'm referring specifically to Barghouti's BDS movement, not boycotts against Israel in the generic sense. Their position is that there can be no peace without the right of return. There is no circumstance that Israel would ever consider that maximalist, irredentist demand in practice. Actual, genuine peace, means that both sides have to make painful sacrifices. The deal is Israel has to end the occupation, Palestinians have to give up refugee claims, and they share Jerusalem, or there will never be a deal. This has been the international consensus for decades, and anyone on any side who thinks otherwise is delusional. Palestinians have already made many, many painful sacrifices. But let's put that aside. Let's assume you genuinely believe what you've just written. Let's deal with it: 1) International consensus has been, since at the very least 1948, that it is a fundamental principle of international law that refugees and their families have a right to return to their homes. This is an inalienable right. 2) There's been a relative consensus that the practical situation that Israel has illegally created through ethnic cleansing, war and settlement, means that it is unlikely that a negotiated deal will include a return for all Palestinian refugees. The suggestions around this include recognising the right but dissuading refugees to act on it through compensation agreements/negotiating with partner states to offer citizenship packages etc. No serious discussion suggests the Palestinians have lost their inalienable rights because time has passed. 3) There's no need to negotiate if one side has to give up all their chips before arriving at the table. What you are suggesting - that Palestinians have to give up their inalienable rights that they as individuals hold under international law before they even get to negotiate is very beyond the pale. 4) You cannot tell me that 'Israel won't accept something therefore the Palestinians should accept what the Israelis tell them'. It demonstrates what is likely a lack of sincerity on your part when you parrot 'painful sacrifices' and 'genuine peace'. Kim Jong Il posted:Under a literal reading of the BDS movement - if tomorrow, Israel was fully onboard with the Kerry framework - no more occupation, no more Gaza blockade - that would not be good enough. "Resistance" would have to continue indefinitely until every single demand is met. BDS necessitates permanent conflict. This is, frankly, stupid. It is absolutely right that BDS continues until a representative peace deal is created. Absolutely right. You probably think you're being clever by talking about the Kerry 'framework'. You either don't know what it is or you're being fabulously dishonest. It's a framework for negotiation. It's basically Madrid-Oslo all over again. 0 reason BDS would stop for that. It's nothing. Here's what peace requires, at a bare minimum: 1) Full Palestinian sovereignty over their air, sea, land, borders and natural resources; 2) Shared control or partition of Jerusalem; 3) Removal of all illegal settlers or allowing them to accept Palestinian nationality; 4) A fair and just resolution to the refugee question; 5) Reparations for Palestinians in Palestinian and for refugees for seven decades of war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. Optional to peace but which would generate regional goodwill: 1) Regional partnerships to accommodate the naturalisation of Palestinian refugees who choose to not return, reparations for Jewish refugees from Arab nations; 2) A significant aid programme to reverse the crippling blows Israel has dealt to Palestinian civil infrastructure; 3) A genuine peace and reconciliation effort between the two peoples. Tell me what you disagree with KJI and we'll see just how much you know about international consensus and how much you are interested in 'genuine peace' versus repeated Likud platform policies from the 1990s.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Do any of the active posters in this thread believe Israel has a right to exist? Or even believe in a two-state solution as a final goal? These are two very silly questions. It doesn't matter whether anyone believes any state has a 'right' to exist. It's a fundamentally nonsense question. It exists. People accept that it exists. As does France, The Russian Federation and the UK. There are several posters who probably still believe in the two-state solution as viable. I no longer do. I used to - in fact my father was at Madrid and Oslo covering the landmarks - but Israeli actions over the last 20 years have rendered it impossible. So I look to a one-state solution, personally, while hoping a two-state solution could still be negotiated.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
zapplez posted:So what happens to the Israelis once they lose their country in your one state solution? Who said anything about losing a country?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The last 12 hours have been about the biggest back and forth between Israeli and Hamas forces in recent years. Feels like the sort of thing that could easily escalate into thousands (of Palestinians) dead. Think you missed a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The question isn't whether the Palestinians have any allies, it's who has the leverage to influence Israel and the will to use it? No one is going to go to war with Israel, for instance - the IDF is a tough opponent even without the risk that the US might come to their aid. With the US defunding UNRWA, there’s going to be a gap in funding for keeping millions of Palestinians from starvation and other ills. Arab states with the most refugees are unlikely to be able to afford to fill in the missing funds. Refugee families are going to be spurred into action. Israel’s about to create a problem for itself and its neighbours that hasn’t existed since the mid-1980s.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 08:44
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i was randomly reading up on israelis kidnapped and murdered by palestinians (i think from some wikipedia page) and the soldiers in the 80s and those teens a few years back were hitchhiking when they got picked up. hitchhiking is still a thing wtf? Yeah, in fact p sure this still happens. It's also the case that soldiers use civilian buses a lot. In fact, when you read more you'll find that a lot of early Hamas bus bombings happened at buses filled with IDF troops or reservists.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:1. There aren't "military buses" that take people from their home to military camps. "Use civilian buses a lot" isn't even a coherent statement in any sort of "just stating the facts" sense. 1. The poster I responded to was a little surprised about hitchhiking soldiers. I wanted to point out that soldiers also use buses a lot. The poster also remarked about kidnapping. I pointed out that Hamas's bus bombings started out with hitting these buses. This seems to have triggered you. Perhaps you might want to explain why. 2. If there are enough soldiers using buses to fill a bus then drat right I think the military should commission transports. Whether you think that's coherent or not is up to you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jul 27, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Miftan posted:1) Because they're usually in civilian clothing and there's no way to tell beyond almost everyone under 45 being in the reserves. If his issue is with the reservists comment, I meant those doing their service. Not everyone under the age of 45 who might be called up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 12:34
|
|