Once again Israel shows it doesn't screw around

[Bill Bumface]

This whole thread reminds me of that commercial:

"I can't get a job, because I don't have experience. I don't have experience, because I can't get a job"

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sadly not all are suggesting it.

Who's on the side of Hamas here?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Who's on the side of Hamas here?

Good question.


There are posts that are vehemently against Israel and down play any good the country may have done, either internally or externally.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Good question.

There are posts that are vehemently against Israel and down play any good the country may have done, either internally or externally.

That's a little disturbing:

Q. Who is on the side of Hamas?
A. Posts that are vehemently against Israel.

Not only that, but:

A2. [Those who] downplay any good the country may have done, either internally or externally.

Perhaps you should reconsider your interpretations.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

That's a little disturbing:

Q. Who is on the side of Hamas?
A. Posts that are vehemently against Israel.

Not only that, but:

A2. [Those who] downplay any good the country may have done, either internally or externally.

Perhaps you should reconsider your interpretations.

Hmm I guess I missunderstood

Originally Posted by _Q_

Big deal. A lot of countries have democracy and women's rights. That doesn't excuse their actions against the Palestinians.

Furthermore, I would argue that not everyone inside land that Israel claims has equal rights and democracy. So, that statement above is only partially true.

Why should the Palestinians have to leave their land to live a dignified life? Shouldn't it be up to them to determine the type of life they want to have within their country?

Just off the cuff.


Anyway continue on as you were.


There is no interest in this thread in finding resolution, it is all about score keeping and who is worse.

[AltaGuy]

I'm not sure that anyone could reasonably expect a resolution on a message board for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. For those who are interested - like myself - I think the best that can be hoped for is that someone who is completely against your position might seriously consider for even the briefest moment something you have said.

For what it's worth, I have read all of blankall's opinions with interest and a critical eye (I mention him specifically because he is who I have responded to most often). I disagree with him on quite a few fundamental things, but he responds rationally and vehemently with which I have absolutely no problem.

Anyway, it's a terrible situation, and we partisans are lucky that we get to argue on a message board about such things without shedding blood while doing so.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

A guy from the Young Turks made a very interesting point...

If Texas (representing Palestine) was occupied...what kind of peace deal would be acceptable to the Texans? Removal of the occupation would be the only acceptable solution.

Can't see any reason why its different for Palestinians.

Trouble is the hardliners in Israel, Palestine and the US (Evangelical Christians) don't want peace...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

A guy from the Young Turks made a very interesting point...

If Texas (representing Palestine) was occupied...what kind of peace deal would be acceptable to the Texans? Removal of the occupation would be the only acceptable solution.

Can't see any reason why its different for Palestinians.

Trouble is the hardliners in Israel, Palestine and the US (Evangelical Christians) don't want peace...

If Texas started firing rockets into the rest of the U.S. the response would be very much the same as Israels.

It really doesn't clarify anything.

you could also argue that Quebec, because its a convenient excuse claimed it was occupied and started firing rockets at Ottawa and Toronto the response from the government would be the same, secure and destroy Quebec's ability to launch rockets at their citizens.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If Texas started firing rockets into the rest of the U.S. the response would be very much the same as Israels.

It really doesn't clarify anything.

you could also argue that Quebec, because its a convenient excuse claimed it was occupied and started firing rockets at Ottawa and Toronto the response from the government would be the same, secure and destroy Quebec's ability to launch rockets at their citizens.

Which suggests that rocket firing is how this whole conflict started. And whether you side with the Israeli version of the last few decades or the Palestinian, neither would claim that rocket attacks started the conflict.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, so correct me if so, but Palestinians didn't just randomly claim occupation and start firing rockets. Nor did Israel just sweep in and take land without reason.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well no, unfortunately some are extreme on either side. However, right off the bat the OP is inflammatory and then you have Nage Waza going full Nage Waza calling people pathetic and anti-semitic in his very first post in the thread.

This discussion had no chance ... just like peace in the region.

That is false and you know it. Repeating lies over and over for the purpose of distorting truth is troubling.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

It is over dramatic, but it isn't out of left field.
It's obvious, to me at least, that there is a either a hidden motive or a fair amount of hate behind Nage's involvement in this discussion.

Not only are you fixated on me, but you have not demonstrated in any way at all that I have done anything hateful in this thread. How about demonstrating something hateful that I said?

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Almost every one of his posts is based entirely on a straw man argument, ignoring the posts of others or purposely distorting them to better suit his own narrative. His sympathy to the Palestinian people who are the largest victims of this whole engagement is shallow and fleeting, while his sympathy to Israel is overwhelming to the point of obvious bias. It's a situation where he has shown he clearly believes Israel has full justification for it's actions, and every innocent Palestinian dead is dead for just and noble reasons, or some inevitable occurrence.

Are you kidding me? Please find anything that supports your silly accusation.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

The value of life is not equitable. Whether this is from hate and dehumanisation, I can't really say for sure.

You really love dishing it out don't you? Attack me because you don't like my fairly basic point of view? I haven't even said anything controversial. Pick something and debate it.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I think a couple people are. There are some people in this discussion that are certainly dangerously bias towards the Hamas, much like Nage's bias towards Israel. This, unfortunately, leads to a fair amount of confusion and anger when the less bias contributors to the discussion say anything critical of Israel, as they are bizarrely attacked under the false assumption that they are defending Hamas or suggesting Israel give up entirely.

Israel has freedoms similar to Canada. This is a website dedicated to a hockey team in Canada. Shocking I back a country similar to Canada on this website. There is little to my argument that demonstrates anything even close to hateful. You have yet to post it, or anything close.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Though I think talking about fallacies is a little pretentious (and I've already done it once in this post), you could burn this entire place down with the amount of straw men being built by some contributors.

I am not following you. Other reasonable posters have said they are not following you. This is a good example of something that is hard to follow.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Assumptions can be made towards intent of course, but the amount of attacking that occurs based on very simple and calm claims is truly bizarre.

Sorry, please prove that or use some examples. Choose carefully though, considering I have eagerly denied these accusations multiple times. Repeating them does not make it true.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well no, unfortunately some are extreme on either side. However, right off the bat the OP is inflammatory and then you have Nage Waza going full Nage Waza calling people pathetic and anti-semitic in his very first post in the thread.

This discussion had no chance ... just like peace in the region.

Please read it again. Also, you jumped into this thread with one purpose, to insult me. And it was baseless. You attacked me rather than the content.

If you care to quote me, go for it, but also include what I was referring to. I 100% stand by what I said.

[Language]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Which suggests that rocket firing is how this whole conflict started. And whether you side with the Israeli version of the last few decades or the Palestinian, neither would claim that rocket attacks started the conflict.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, so correct me if so, but Palestinians didn't just randomly claim occupation and start firing rockets. Nor did Israel just sweep in and take land without reason.

The thing is, at this point, does it matter how it all started? Each side will pick a point in time and say, 'you started it!', while the other will point to another instance in history.

The arguments back and forth in these pages exemplify the true difficulty in resolving this crisis. Instead of arguing who is worse or who started it, why don't we discuss the FUTURE and see if we could potentially come up with reasonable solutions. A game of sorts.

In my opinion, these are the only ways peace will be achieved:

1) Hamas puts down its weapons and adopts a strategy of peace. Full disclosure of arsenal and changes its charter to recognizing Israel's right to exist.
2) Alternatively, the PA in the West Bank disassociates itself entirely from the Gaza Strip.
3) If Hamas does as 1) states, Israel (on good faith), stops the blockade on Gaza in the hope that the Palestinians do all they can to rebuild the Strip. Foreign investment can possibly ensue (even Israeli).
4) The settlement issue in the West Bank would need to be resolved. In my opinion, Israel should pull out of all newly constructed settlements.

In a rush so don't have time to think of other major issues (Jerusalem's borders, etc). A two-state solution is possible, but it will require both sides to make concessions and even more faith in one another. This includes the ability of each side to police their own extremists who don't want to commit to peace (which in my opinion is one of the central keys for a peace plan eventually being sorted out).

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Language

The thing is, at this point, does it matter how it all started? Each side will pick a point in time and say, 'you started it!', while the other will point to another instance in history.

At this point there is certainly no going back, only going forward. I am a believer of that and they almost need to recognize each other and possibly forgive.

Originally Posted by Language

The arguments back and forth in these pages exemplify the true difficulty in resolving this crisis. Instead of arguing who is worse or who started it, why don't we discuss the FUTURE and see if we could potentially come up with reasonable solutions. A game of sorts.

I think the first option is some recognition for both sides that they actually want what is best for the people, both sides. Israel wants peace and a Jewish homeland, or at least a homeland they have that will take in Jews. Palestinians want a normal life. Do they want their future society to be like Israel or something less liberal? I think they must allow for minority rights, at a minimum.

Originally Posted by Language

In my opinion, these are the only ways peace will be achieved:

1) Hamas puts down its weapons and adopts a strategy of peace. Full disclosure of arsenal and changes its charter to recognizing Israel's right to exist.
2) Alternatively, the PA in the West Bank disassociates itself entirely from the Gaza Strip.
3) If Hamas does as 1) states, Israel (on good faith), stops the blockade on Gaza in the hope that the Palestinians do all they can to rebuild the Strip. Foreign investment can possibly ensue (even Israeli).
4) The settlement issue in the West Bank would need to be resolved. In my opinion, Israel should pull out of all newly constructed settlements. [/QUOTE]

I think another step is some recognition that the good chance of success for the Palestinians is through Israel, in the sense that they (Israel) could be a great ally and certainly have demonstrated over the years they can develop a thriving country. Israel on the other hand has to open their society up to allow this to happen. I don't know if that will alienate Palestinians to the rest of the middle east, but nothing could be worse than what is happening now.

The other item I bring up all the time is education. It is a small country and feasible that all children, Palestinian and Israeli, are educated together. They are the generation that can grow up without the memories of what took place today and taught to work together.

Originally Posted by Language

In a rush so don't have time to think of other major issues (Jerusalem's borders, etc). A two-state solution is possible, but it will require both sides to make concessions and even more faith in one another. This includes the ability of each side to police their own extremists who don't want to commit to peace (which in my opinion is one of the central keys for a peace plan eventually being sorted out).

Let's keep in mind that until rather recently much of the Palestinian economy was via working in Israel. Although a two state solution could work, I think it is vital that Palestinians have access to Israel and visa versa.

[Bleeding Red]

A number of posts noted that Gaza has always been under a blockade / occupation. That is false.

Since the withdrawal, with the exception of the 2 wars, there has been no Israeli presence in Gaza - civilian or military.

The PA initially had control of their boarders as per agreements:

LINK

"To promote peaceful economic development and improve the humanitarian situation on the ground, the following agreement has been reached. It represents the commitments of the Government of Israel (GoI) and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Its implementation and the further elaboration will be assisted by the QuartetSpecial Envoy for Disengagement and hisstaff and/or the United States Security Coordinator (USSC) and his staff."

It notes boarder crossings, movement between the WB & Gaza ("Israel will allow the passage of convoys to facilitate the movements of goods and persons.), seaports (Construction of a seaport can commence. The GoI will undertake to assure donors that it will not interfere with the operation of the port.), and construction of an airport which Gaza did not have.

Then, yes, Hamas came to power, did away with their Fatah opposition, fired a few feeble rockets, and THEN Israel began a very legal under international law blockade. I believe it is legal because the UN (gospel to many) said so - LINK - "The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law." pg. 4, para. ii.

From the Telegraph - "It's time to bust the 'Israeli blockade led to Hamas rockets' myth"

[gvitaly]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I wanted to (perhaps) add a few points regarding this conflict and why it is so difficult to judge.

• As you all know in Israel military service is mandatory(2-3 years), which makes Israelis think about their soldiers as civilians(not professionals making money of it) doing their part. This helps justify in the eyes of many the killing of civilians on the other side as collateral damage. As in its better their citizens will die than ours.
• Israel does hit a lot of public infrastructure(including hospitals, schools, etc.) in its bombings. However, it claims that most of the bunkers, rocket factories, ammo storages, built in rocket launchers and so on are located under those places. If its all true or not is very difficult to decide, because we just hear of a death toll that keeps rising.
• It is almost impossible to achieve mutual trust, because even though the Hamas controls gaza other organizations can launch rockets even after a cease fire is established. On the other side, Israel will conduct air strikes from time to time just to show its might, or to sabotage a terrorist operation. Again this is all open to interpretation depending on which side you're watching the news from.
• Even though it seems like the damage to Israel is small, the economic damage is absolutely huge. Especially when you consider that every rocket they blow out of the sky costs $100k. When you consider that they hit hundreds of rockets, received damage to property from hundreds more, and made thousands of bombings themselves it really adds up.
• Israel is not interested in killing or enslaving Palestinians. If Israel wanted it could pass a death sentence to terrorists captured instead of keeping the prisoner and eventually releasing them. Instead of sending flyers and making phone calls to Palestinian regions it will attack (so that civilians could evacuate), they could have just bombed whole neighborhoods. They could have just as easily stopped sending power and water into Gaza. So lets not kid ourselves in that they are trying to kill civilians on purpose. Could they be more careful? probably, but that would require ground forces in Gaza(and quite a few casualties).
• Both Hamas and Israel have finite ammo, as soon as they start to run low they will stop firing, and reach a cease fire. Israel is really dependent on the US for both fuel and ammo supplies, so they can't do anything without a green light to attack in Gaza in force. The only problem is that both sides need to look victorious when this war is over. Politics is the same in all countries...

So those are a few thoughts I had on the Issue... I could be biased, because I lived in Israel from 1991-2003, so my thoughts are more consistent with those of the Israeli people. I did try to stay impartial as much as I could, but honestly this new round of fighting seems like just politics. All the leaders of both sides are comfy in their bunkers(already planning future weapon deals), and that's what's important right?

[nik-]

edit: you know what, screw it, don't care enough anymore

[Kjesse]

I stay out of this debate, but thought this was a great Iama on reddit by an Israeli soldier. Lots of great posts and the soldier's own comments on what he thinks give me hope that someday cooler heads will prevail and peace can be found:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comment...talk_about_my/

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am not following you. Other reasonable posters have said they are not following you. This is a good example of something that is hard to follow.

Look up "straw man". Pretty easily to follow if you try. Though, perhaps you're right, if multiple posters have said something, it must be true...

Originally Posted by nik-

Threads about Israel are always ruined by Nage Waza's frothing at the mouth posts.

Originally Posted by The Ditch

lol hate speech, you're literally crazy, get a clue.

Originally Posted by nik-

You play the "hate speech/race card" so often you never even take it off the table.

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

I am trying to figure out why you have the worlds biggest chip on your shoulders here.

Originally Posted by jammies

According to you, any post that in any way criticizes Israel's policies is hate. Do you not see how pathological that is?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Transparent attempts to silence criticism with absurd cries of anti-Semitism.

Originally Posted by smoothpops

I think both sides are reprehensible in their own ways, and people like you (on both sides) only prolong this asinine conflict and try to pull every one into the muck with them.

Originally Posted by _Q_

Well no, you never really point anything out. You just keep bashing the same garbage into these threads to the point where the other side is just exhausted by your Anti-Arab lunacy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't mind arguing this topic with others, but you on the other hand, it's almost fun to watch you blow up over the mere mention of the words "Israel" or "Palestine".... almost

Originally Posted by nik-

Annoying right?

Originally Posted by flameswin

I find it fascinating watching the extremists on either side in Q and NagaWaza passionately argue on behalf of their side. It's like our own little CP vision in the world of that conflict.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Nage being totally extreme on the other end, while pretending to be moderate and pleading for someone to point out his extremist views and then attacking anyone who does.

Originally Posted by nik-

Because conversation that's anti-Israel in any form is wasted on you ... I don't know how someone who calls so many people racist with absolutely zero justification can be allowed to post here still.

I'll work on my clarity, but it looks like you have some deeper issues to work out based on the sheer number of posters who find you a little exhausting.

In the mean time, since you've made it clear you won't be addressing my questions when asked (or links, or facts), I'll do you the same favour, and continue any conversations in this thread with it's more reasonable, logical, and unbiased contributors.

Now, back to the topic a hand. Hopefully I can pay attention to more posters like blankall, who (as Altaguy said) has actually made some interesting contributions and seems open to clarification (along with others of course).

It's an interesting debate. Because it's been going on for so long I feel like a lot of how people feel about it stems from their upbringing. Some Canadians (Americanised Canadians especially) certainly have an automatic tendency towards Israel, while it's not quite as common in Sweden and much of Scandinavia/Eastern Europe.

[Tinordi]

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...reater-israel/

I think because many want Israel to be other than what it plainly is. They understand that this project of a bi-national state with Jim Crow segregation and disenfranchisement is a horrible fate. Jeffrey is as eloquent on this today as he has ever been:

If Netanyahu has convinced himself that a Palestinian state is an impossibility, then he has no choice but to accept the idea that the status quo eventually brings him to binationalism, either in its Jim Crow form—Palestinians absorbed into Israel, except without full voting rights—or its end-of-Israel-as-a-Jewish-state form, in which the two warring populations, Jewish and Arab, are combined into a single political entity, with chaos to predictably ensue.

But this is clearly the reality. The Obama administration was the last hope for some kind of agreement, and the Israelis have told the president to go #### himself on so many occasions the very thought of accommodation is preposterous. With the acceleration of the settlements, and the ever-rising racism and religious fundamentalism in Israel itself, this is what Israel now is. And what it will always be. Anyone still assuming that a two-state solution is actually in the minds of the leaders of Israel is therefore whistling in the wind. One wonders simply how many Palestinians have to die and how much largess we must keep sending to Israel before that whistling eventually stops.