|
i am harry posted:The onus has always been on Palestine to step up and be civilized from the beginning. Because being "uncivilized" means your lives have no value.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:The point is that at this point, there are elements on both sides that are actively poisonous to the peace process, that all need to cool it for any kind of lasting solution to occur. And if I have a gaping chest wound and a splinter I need to fix both of those before I can be deemed healthy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And lest we forget, this whole round started not because of rockets, but because of the kidnapping that the Israeli government already knew to be resolved at the time they claim they were investigating it. If it hadn't been the kidnappings, it would've been the cabdriver murder or something. Indeed, we did have a Hamas that did nothing to instigate an escalation and they got cracked down on and killed for their trouble. Then came the (largely ineffectual) rockets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:We've gone over the fact that Israel is a democracy. Do you think people who are under rocket fire are necessarily going to make the most rational voting choices? They're probably going to vote for the guy that will do something decisive about the rocket fire, as opposed to not do much about the rocket fire. What about "end the occupation?" Well, first you have to convince them that it is at the root of this whole conflict, but as long as Hamas keeps firing rockets, "the Arabs are barbarous savages" is a much more palatable explanation to a scared populace. Your line of reasoning is shoddy. Would you like to address the underlying issue of Palestinians as a people having to live in, what are effectively, large open air prisons? Oh yeah, don't forget that they are also not treated with the same dignity as a normal human being should. P.S. Longest running illegal blockade in human history. Agrajag fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
This is not an Onion article. It is, however, a good demonstration of how the longer this goes on, the worse it gets. You see, the guy who drove his tractor into a bus yesterday? Turns out the last time this happened, about 5 years ago... he was in the news. quote:Channel 2 reported that Ja’abis, from Jabel Mukaber, took part in a demonstration in 2009 with about 30 other tractor drivers who were worried the tractor terror attacks put their jobs at risk. “We’re scared that, if God forbid, something happens, they will think that we’re trying to carry out a terror attack — and then they will kill us without asking any questions,” Ja’abis told Channel 2 Online at the demonstration in 2009. It would be ironic, were it not for the fact his family is still insisting it was a horrible accident and he simply lost control of his tractor. Instead of irony, maybe it's just prophecy. quote:if God forbid, something happens, they will think that we’re trying to carry out a terror attack — and then they will kill us without asking any questions (then again watching the cellphone video from that link that tractor doesn't look out of control) Lum_ fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Cancer/Hamas Definition - Does that make Israel and the West the high-fructose corn syrup and highly processed foods which the world stuffs itself with, leading to cancer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Cancer is caused by repeated vivisections of healthly tissue plus the unwanted insertion of foreign bodies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Did anyone else see the unintended Israel - Blood/Lymphatic Systems - Halal link there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Sorry to butt in, but I want to find out about the Hamas-Fatah unity government and what were the terms both sides agreed to. I looked for news articles, but they don't really go into specifics and only talk about how disappointed Israel is, and even Wikipedia only has a short description of what happened afterwards. I managed to find one article, but all it says that "The new government that will be formed will not include members of either Fatah or Hamas, but rather experts who will prepare the ground for presidential and parliamentary elections on January 15, 2015." Other ones talk about 2011 or don't add anything new. Is that it? Could any of you point me towards some links? Thanks in advance. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
quote:BNig surprise!!! #IDF will pull out ALL its forces from #GAZA by 8 am when the C-F is in place a senior military source just said. https://twitter.com/yossi_melman/status/496500138387734528 I think he's a pretty reliable journalist, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Xandu posted:https://twitter.com/yossi_melman/status/496500138387734528 He's pretty solid from what I've seen. Just insufferably pro-Israeli.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Xandu posted:https://twitter.com/yossi_melman/status/496500138387734528 Ynet confirms. 72 hours, supposedly. We'll know how it goes in about an hour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Sounds like pretty much what people were expecting so far; the ceasefire was a strategy to get out when they had no other exit strategy. Let's hope they actually continue with negotiations instead of going back to the status quo, but I don't have much optimism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
The reasoning is that the IDF destroyed "all" 32 tunnels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
So let me ask what seems to be an obvious question: If you endorsed in the past the Hamas position that terrorist attacks against Israel would continue until the Israeli blockade of Gaza was dissolved completely and justified - shouldn't you condemn the new ceasefire? Anyone want to be logically consistent and call for Hamas to reject a long term ceasefire that doesn't involve Israel's capitulation on their demands? Personally, I'm glad Hamas and Israel have finally both agreed to a ceasefire. I just wish Hamas had been more receptive to the ceasefire proposed back at the start of the latest hostilities - hundreds of innocent lives could have been saved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:So let me ask what seems to be an obvious question: Your 'obvious question' has the most obvious answer in the world. They are in a ceasefire as an opening for new negotiations. You know, the thing they are announcing, having representatives meet in Cairo. You kind of want to have some opening to start negotiations if your goal is for one side to have concessions. MrBims fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:So let me ask what seems to be an obvious question: Is that the one that Hamas wasn't told about? Because it's very hard to be receptive to an arrangement that you were never told about, I've found.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:So let me ask what seems to be an obvious question: It's a three day ceasefire. What's long term about that? I understand the impulse towards smugness. But this doesn't even make any sense. It's just moronic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Personally, I'm glad Hamas and Israel have finally both agreed to a ceasefire. I just wish Hamas had been more receptive to the ceasefire proposed back at the start of the latest hostilities - hundreds of innocent lives could have been saved. And I wish Israel never started the whole thing. Over a thousand lives would've been saved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:It's a three day ceasefire. What's long term about that? Let me simplify. Should Hamas reject a longer term ceasefire if Israel doesn't meet their previously released list of demands? Yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Let me simplify. Are you joking? The Israelis have destroyed their schools and hospitals and left thousands homeless. They have shockingly little to lose by fighting on if the Israelis won't commit to real peace. "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
It's not unreasonable to expect rocket fire to resume if nothing changes and negotiations collapse. Gaza remains a prison, except now without power, water, sewage, or medical care. Right now the future of Gaza is one of slow painful death to dysentery and malnutrition. Sappo fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The reasoning is that the IDF destroyed "all" 32 tunnels. What was the last body count at?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Let me simplify. e; assuming complete unwillingness to negotiate on I's part. negotiations are compromise etc etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Many people in this thread think that Palestine has no responsibility to change their actions in order to affect a better outcome for themselves. Also, many people have said that Israel's aggressive actions are doing more harm to Israel than any of Palestine's actions. Why would there be any support for a cease fire, since it implies that Palestine has accountability for the current conflict, and will theoretically prevent Israel from continuing its campaign? If you start arguing, "It's a sensible thing to do considering how many lives it will save and the net positive effect it will have on the Palestinian people," then there were a lot of other proactive steps Palestine could've taken before this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Discospawn posted:If you start arguing, "It's a sensible thing to do considering how many lives it will save and the net positive effect it will have on the Palestinian people," then there were a lot of other proactive steps Palestine could've taken before this point. Like what? Please, do tell exactly what HAMAS could have done to avoid this entire incident? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:12
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Are you joking? The Israelis have destroyed their schools and hospitals and left thousands homeless. They have shockingly little to lose by fighting on if the Israelis won't commit to real peace. "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." Do you acknowledge that there have been numerous documented cases of Palestinians hiding weapons in schools, hospitals, and shelters? If yes, do you agree that Palestinians bear the majority of responsibility from whatever damage occurs from standardly targeting (in war you attack the supply or whatever is shooting you) the strategically-placed weapons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital#Hamas_bunker
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:What was the last body count at? North of 1900 last I can recall. Probably over 2100 by this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
I choose to believe that that is actually Bibi's SomethingAwful account.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Netanyahu posted:If yes, do you agree that Palestinians bear the majority of responsibility from whatever damage occurs from standardly targeting (in war you attack the supply or whatever is shooting you) the strategically-placed weapons? No, that in no way follows. Israel is still choosing to target these sites knowing that each strike on a civilian target kills more civilians than Israelis have been killed in the past year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Probably over 2100 by this point. Doubtful. It's quiet right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Netanyahu posted:Do you acknowledge that there have been numerous documented cases of Palestinians hiding weapons in schools, hospitals, and shelters? If yes, do you agree that Palestinians bear the majority of responsibility from whatever damage occurs from standardly targeting (in war you attack the supply or whatever is shooting you) the strategically-placed weapons? Yes. No. Now what? You're certainly living up to your username.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Like what? Please, do tell exactly what HAMAS could have done to avoid this entire incident? HAMAS could run a government that was capable of preventing militias that weren't under its control from firing rockets into Israel. That would've been the most direct and simplest way to prevent the current conflict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's loving dumber that people are buying the story that Israel is forced, forced to kill hundreds of people in a way that is detrimental to its own interests. Bibi is forced, forced to escalate the crisis. With that, I'm gonna do an effortpost against my better judgment. Tezzor posted:The problem, from the Israeli perspective, is that they must not legitimize Hamas, so sharing intel with them to help them track down murderers and rocket-launchers is outside the realm of possibility. There is much nuance to be gained by understanding language. This post will begin with paraphrasing, then provide some examples, and close with implications on nuances of policy. 'Intelligence depends, in large measure, on clear and concise writing. Information gathered and analysis produced mean little if they cannot convey them effectively. The style for intelligent publications reflects an enduring commitment to the highest standards of care and precision. The world is not static, nor the language employed to assess it.' For instance: Hamas' refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist impels the Gazan populace to propel rockets which compel an Israeli responce. I am a disinterested observer of the present I/P crisis. I do not claim I feel for either Israelis nor Palestinians. See, feel:  The word 'indigenous' has been used in this thread as an adjective modifier. Indigenous means native to or naturally occuring in a country or region. For instance: Israelis are indigenous to Israel. Palestinians manage domestic affairs within Gazan territory. See, indigenous:  IDF will very likely cannon the origination point of any weapon fire from the Gaza Strip. Hamas is apt to fire Qassam rockets from civilian infrastructure. Palestinians are liable to IDF doctrine. For some targets, the counterfire will occur with the full speed of bureaucracy. Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyabu is loath to speak with President Obama. They loathe each other and are most unlikely to agree on what constitutes a loathsome response to Hamas logistic operations. Logistic, in the sense of moving, quartering, and supplying troops, as an adjective. Hamas' refusal in recognitizing Israel's right to exist is noisome to the plight of Palestinian civilians. This is not practicable. Jerusalem holds shelling any identified target as a practical matter. State disagrees. Another example of impermissible and permissible speach: IDF fire kills young babies. IDF cannon subjected babies to casualties. Another example of permissible speach: Gazan babies were subjected to casualties by Israeli cannon. Another example of impermissible speach: Babies in Gaza were killed and injured by Israeli cannon. Finally, an exanple of disinformation: Israeli cannon targeted Gazan babies to sustain casualties. Hamas' recognition is relevant to Jerusalem and Jewish Israelis. Hamas is reluctant reletive to the reticent stance of Israel. While many citizens of both US and Israel view the Israeli disclosure of tapping Kerry's phone exposes the nature of Jerusalem, disinterested parties will note that discreet misinformation, ironically, divulges the enormity of disinformation. IDF employs the use of nonconventional weapons. IDF condemns Hamas' use of unconventional tactics. Hamas condemns the use of nonconventional weapons. Hamas does not possess nonconventional weapons. IDF claims responsibility for this. IDF is doctrainaire in following conventional tactics. There have been previous posts on whether there is an embargo or blockade of Gaza Strip. The precise terms are whether Israel imposes a boycott or embargo. Israel applies sanctions on weapon shipments to Palestinians. Israeli policy attempts to motivate Gazans to boycott weapon shipments. An embargo may only be carried out against a state actor; a boycott is carried out against an organization. See, boycott/embargo:  However. If one says that Israel embargos Gaza Strip, that carries the full weight of legal implications of statehood. The onus is upon Gazan citizens to determine the governing policies of their state; else, any acts which are perceived as a threat potential by Israel will be construed as state acts, and thus subject to the rules of war. The laws of war only govern target objectives. They do not govern the means by which these target objectives are pursued. For instance, it is lawful for IDF to act upon the target objective of, "Destruction of all Gazan offensive capabilities." Israel is not obligated to use nonconventional weapons to achieve this goal. As a state actor, if Gaza wishes for an Israeli de-escalation, it may achieve so at any time by agreeing to Israeli terms. America has had this historical experience. Who won the War of 1812? An American will answer differently from a Canadian. Why, then, is it the responsibility of Israel to deal with a state actor which refuses to recognize its right to exist while still expecting Israel to recognize rights of Gazan citizens in governance? Consistency must be maintained in an answer to ensure consistent analysis. I reject the notion that Palestinian Arabs are weaker than Israelis. The answer to that informs the word choice on whether Arabs emigrated from Israel to Gaza Strip, or Arabs immigrated to Jordan, or Arabs migrated to Gaza and West Bank territories from the Jewish state if Israel. Is it too difficult a precept that one cannot concurrently claim they are a migrant without claiming the point from or to which they are a migrant? By definition, migration is between states. See: exile and redundant phrases:   Are the Gazans in exile from Israel? Are they migrants to the Gaza Strip? In 1948, were they emigrants from Israel to Egypt? Were they immigrants to Egypt from Israel? Vanadium posted:And so will a lot of Jews, evidently. But it's nice to have the option! That is the sole purpose behind the foundation of the nation of Israel. When all other nation-states closed themselves as an asylum destination to Jews, it demonstrated that only a state which guaranteed such destination would prevent from reoccuring. Paranoia was rational in USSR during Stalin's rule. fade5 posted:
If Israel changed the language of the 'right of return' to 'right of asylum,' would that change your perception of the situation? This is the issue of the emigration/immigration/migration divide: Jews have emigrated from across the world to Israel. Migrate would imply that those Jews expect to be in Israel temporarily. Israel was founded as a nation on the right of Jewish asylum: a nation-state which, in the worst-case of ethnic cleansing, offers Jews a nation to which they may always emigrate. On that, it would benefit me to learn more on the precise evolution of the adjective descriptors of the Diaspora within rabbinic law and its commentaries. Finally, these differences in semantic usage reflect nuanced positions of various nations. If you find one calling for an end to, "the Israeli/Egpytian embargo of the Gazan Strip," you are seeing an implicit admission that Gaza has the right to be treated like a hostile state actor by Israel. If you see a call for an end to, "the Israeli boycott of Gaza," you are seeing a position which implies Israeli trusteeship over Gazans. Similarly, the differences between 'migrant' 'emigrant' 'exile' and 'immigrant' when used in official state communiques implies deliberate position. thefncrow posted:Thankfully, we're clearly so much better off that our government is ideologically consistent at the cost of causing even more evil in the world. Humanity has benefited from consistent US institutions in terms of public health policies, international trade, information sharing, technological development, human rights development, and a viable alternative to one-party states. Once again, assign no emotion to state acts. This post may very likely be perceived as Israeli apologism. It is not. The terms linked are the official language used to inform US policy development. Israel meets criteria to be recognized as a state actor by US. Israel is compliant with US official policy. PLO has been recognized the same. I already had a laugh at the risk I may receive a "Literal Grammar Nazi" red title from this. Rogue0071 posted:No, it isn't, it's insulting and outrageous to be offered citizenship in a settler-colonial state that created itself through massive ethnic cleansing which continues to this day which claims to be my "homeland" because I have Jewish ancestry as a tool of said state to maintain racism and oppression. If apartheid South Africa had offered citizenship to any white person willing to go there in an effort to maintain white rule I wouldn't say it was "nice to have the option". Does Israel have the right to exist? I advocate for negotiated peace between Israel and any state which recognizes its right to exist, with treaty terms that require increased taxation and decreased land use within Israel and US aid. SedanChair posted:The concept of a Jewish state as a permanent ethnic majority--not the original concept of a national homeland, a permanent, undemocratic majority--is itself a spoiler and that should constantly be reiterated. Persuade Jewish Israelis that they should trust a non-Jewish ethnic majority to respect the 'right of return.' Jewish history has too few examples of this, and your rhetoric does not advance your cause. Concluding, "No writing, however skilled, can conceal deficiencies in these requisites [knowledge, clarity of thought, and good judgment]." Somebody fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Discospawn posted:HAMAS could run a government that was capable of preventing militias that weren't under its control from firing rockets into Israel. That would've been the most direct and simplest way to prevent the current conflict. And why couldn't they get the murder rate down to 0% also? Those lazy Hamas members, they're just not trying hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:21
|
|
Discospawn posted:HAMAS could run a government that was capable of preventing militias that weren't under its control from firing rockets into Israel. That would've been the most direct and simplest way to prevent the current conflict. The problem is that it is in direct contradiction with HAMAS' charter, which calls for the annihilation of all Jews. Any proposed solution for Hamas that includes "not attacking Israel/Jews" would be diametrically opposed with their own "Constitution"
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:What was the last body count at? From what I've read, between 1,700 and 1,900.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
why are tables being broken with pictures of a dictionary
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Discospawn posted:HAMAS could run a government that was capable of preventing militias that weren't under its control from firing rockets into Israel. That would've been the most direct and simplest way to prevent the current conflict. They did that for two years, then Israel walked back on its agreements 'Because' and led a massive crackdown in the west bank, that killed like a dozen people? And launched a series of strikes into Gaza, that killed anti-rocket HAMAS people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:24
|
|