|
Libluini posted:Considering Netanjahu had the gall to say "We have to fight terrorism like Rabin" I wouldn't put it past him. Rabin was a cynical politician, I guess he wanted to deescalate the violence which is more than you can say about most of his successors but it would be somewhat naive to believe that was truly working towards a fair settlement with the Palestinians. First, Rabin never intended to allow an independent Palestine to exist, this fact is corroborated by his own numerous statements: http://972mag.com/yitzhak-rabin-never-supported-palestinian-statehood/113295/ tl;dr Rabin supported a 'palestinian autonomy' over 'parts' of the west bank, demilitarized short of a police force and with its borders fully controlled by Israel. Amusingly, Rabin's alleged 'peace plan' is not that different than what we actually have right now, which really goes to show how empty all of these claims about Rabin offering true and just peace are. Chomsky's analysis of the Oslo accords is a required reading on the subject imo: http://chomsky.info/199601__/ ultimately, given Rabin's own intentions towards palestinian statehood it is much more appropriate to view the Oslo accords as a partial annexation agreement than a proper peace treaty (or 'Road map to peace' treaty, as it was billed at the time). - Nowadays Rabin is more of a mythological figure in Israeli politics with the 'left' trying to use his memory to bash right wingers, who in turn don't really give a gently caress cause they are still super happy about Rabin being dead, which is stupid in its own right because Rabin was more than willing to allow most settlement blocks to continue existing.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Boy THAT's not going to kick anybody's paranoia into overdrive. Stealth Palestinian cleaners.  The Arabs are coming from inside the house!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Just watch what they do: if they actually work, they aren't true Haredim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Rabin was a cynical politician, I guess he wanted to deescalate the violence which is more than you can say about most of his successors but it would be somewhat naive to believe that was truly working towards a fair settlement with the Palestinians. While a lot of this was true, I don't think it's proper to see politicians as static actors. Arafat, Shamir, Sharon all changed, even Meshal and Haniyeh are pretty much indistinguishable from Abbas at this point in the sense that they're acting as proxies for Israel to stop another Protective Edge from happening. Whatever you may think about them in their own rights, all have laundry lists of sins, but they have shown a practicality in some respect. If we put this in the context of Bill Clinton poking and prodding, generous economic incentives, Sunni states getting spooked by 9/11, and such, it's feasible. Barak got very close, and heck, Olmert got reasonably close. In fact I think that we would have seen peace agreements if Hamas didn't start bombing in 1996, or the Intifada hadn't started in 2000. There's that, and the fact that Netanyahu may be the most disingenuous, solely interested in self preservation politician in the entire world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:we would have seen peace agreements if Hamas didn't start bombing in 1996, or the Intifada hadn't started in 2000. Or if a Palestinian state had come about by 1996 or if war criminal Sharon hadn't visited the temple mount with a massive guard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I think it's easy in retrospect, as we see the Palestinian National Authority enter its third decade, to minimize just how much of an achievement it was to get the Israeli public to accept a government negotiating with the PLO, much less giving Palestinians any kind of power or withdrawing IDF troops. The PLO became mainstream, with Arafat becoming a lovable satirical character on comedy shows instead of a horrible monster. There are indications that Rabin's next steps would have included curbs on the growth and maybe even the withdrawal of settlements: he seems to have been preparing those living in the Golan Heights to having to relocate after a potential peace deal with Syria, for example, and the settlers definitely believed he was going to be removing them. But doing even this much created enough hostility to him, particularly riling up the right-wingers, that he ended up getting assassinated. This showed that the national religious right, at least, is willing to go as far as that to protect its privileges - and the push for reconciliation with them rather than ostracizing them cemented the idea that Jews would stick to Jews, all else be damned. And since the settlements kept expanding, expropriating Palestinian land, and since Israeli security reactions were always obscenely pro-Jewish (putting the whole of Palestinian Hebron on lockdown since the Goldstein massacre, instead of going after the Jewish extremists, for example), it's safe to say that if there hadn't been Hamas, another armed group would have risen up and done what they did; maybe factions of Fatah would have split off sooner. Most importantly, this kind of group would have popular support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:Or if a Palestinian state had come about by 1996 or if war criminal Sharon hadn't visited the temple mount with a massive guard. The Labor party was actively trying to make a state come about then! There are quotes from Fatah members about Arafat planning the intifada after negotiations failed in 2000, so while that was one of many sparks, Arafat and Fatah certainly have a ton of blood on their hands for instigating the conflict to try to extract addition concessions. It's been shown repeatedly that violence hardens public opinion, and certainly the same goes for Hamas being enabled by violence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Are we still going to be blaming the palestinians for their own oppression when they're all dead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Are we still going to be blaming the palestinians for their own oppression when they're all dead? New Palestinians will be found.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The Labor party was actively trying to make a state come about then! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The Labor party was actively trying to make a state come about then! There are quotes from Fatah members about Arafat planning the intifada after negotiations failed in 2000, so while that was one of many sparks, Arafat and Fatah certainly have a ton of blood on their hands for instigating the conflict to try to extract addition concessions. It's been shown repeatedly that violence hardens public opinion, and certainly the same goes for Hamas being enabled by violence. Violence hardens Israeli public opinion and increases support for the creeping annexation enterprise while non-violence also hardens Israeli public opinion and increases support for the creeping annexation enterprise. Quite the dilemma, to be certain. I mean while may be of the 'it's better to live on your knees than to die on your feet' persuasion, it seems rather natural for members of an oppressed population to prefer dying on their feet. I had a similar conversation with some Israeli liberals on facebook today, they too used the lack of efficacy of palestinian violence as some sort of proof that palestinian violence is inherently immoral due to its hopelessness but honestly I just find this argument to be kinda monstrous all on its own, should the palestinians stop fighting just because they're facing a superior foe? it's kind of a ridiculous point to make, they are an oppressed people, their right to resist oppression is more moral than the right of Israelis to live their life in a protected little bubble pretending everything's just peachy as long as no Israelis get stabbed. And as for the specific negotiations you've mentioned earlier, it is a well accepted fact that is mostly only denied by Dershowitz that the proposals put forth by the Israeli negotiation team in the Taba talks was effectively unacceptable and that while it offered the palestinians autonomy over significant parts of the territory it stipulated that they must forever remain demilitarized and have no direct borders with Jordan, more over, it had the west bank criss-crossed with numerous Israeli controlled zones and settler only roads, it also had east jerusalem effectively separated from the rest of the territory by a ring of Israeli settlements, so you know, it kinda supports my earlier argument that the treaties were meant to legitimize the annexation of the territory rather than anything else, and on top of that that the offer put forth in Taba was always meant to be rejected by the palestinians. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Violence hardens Israeli public opinion and increases support for the creeping annexation enterprise while non-violence also hardens Israeli public opinion and increases support for the creeping annexation enterprise. This isn't true vis a vis the 1992, 1999, or 2006. elections quote:I had a similar conversation with some Israeli liberals on facebook today, they too used the lack of efficacy of palestinian violence as some sort of proof that palestinian violence is inherently immoral due to its hopelessness but honestly I just find this argument to be kinda monstrous all on its own, should the palestinians stop fighting just because they're facing a superior foe? it's kind of a ridiculous point to make, they are an oppressed people, their right to resist oppression is more moral than the right of Israelis to live their life in a protected little bubble pretending everything's just peachy as long as no Israelis get stabbed. It's literally making their lives demonstrably worse (compare 1992-2000 to onwards), and further entrenching settlements as permanent, so yeah it's a bad idea. Mostly denied by Dershowitz? Ask Clinton and the various American negotiators, which is not to say that they're necessarily correct, just that your point about a consensus is incorrect, and that's about as far that the USA, as Israel's patron, is willing to go. Do you see a better deal as possible? Demilitarization and the Jordan Valley might have been solvable, but there will never be a Labor government that gives up the settlements around Jerusalem and the bloc near Tel Aviv. That's as far as Israel will realistically go in any negotiations, and the calculus has swung hard in the direction of less concessions. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's literally making their lives demonstrably worse (compare 1992-2000 to onwards), and further entrenching settlements as permanent, so yeah it's a bad idea. Just like the warsaw ghetto uprising was a bad idea because it led to the liquidations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
I think that it is safe to say that the most effective way of getting Israel to change behavior, at least on a tactical level, is targeting the military. You can look at how the public mood changed from before to after ~60 of them were killed last summer. "Yeah, get at those bastards!" to "Uhh... this is not really working maybe we should reassess." Meanwhile attacks against civilians lead to harsher crackdowns and easier right-wing wins in subsequent elections, and nonviolent protests are less and less effective the more the judiciary shies away from enforcing rule of law whenever it would benefit Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I think that it is safe to say that the most effective way of getting Israel to change behavior, at least on a tactical level, is targeting the military. You can look at how the public mood changed from before to after ~60 of them were killed last summer. "Yeah, get at those bastards!" to "Uhh... this is not really working maybe we should reassess." Meanwhile attacks against civilians lead to harsher crackdowns and easier right-wing wins in subsequent elections, and nonviolent protests are less and less effective the more the judiciary shies away from enforcing rule of law whenever it would benefit Palestinians. This is true. cf 1982. The problem is, Israel has made it extraordinarily difficult to target the military - and yet actually a significant number of Palestinian violent attacks recently have been against Israeli military/police targets, some 40% - so resistance groups have taken to targeting civilians because: 1) it means they might achieve something; and 2) because they feel that Israeli should face some of what they face. Take Gaza for example - it's a tiny bit of land, constantly monitored. Drones are in the air. Hamas' weapons are essentially small arms or rockets. Their rockets don't have any aiming systems so they are indiscriminate in the first place. They can't get close enough to the border to use small arms. They tried tunnels - which by the way were entirely anti-military - but those are a colossal effort and extraordinarily risky. And any time a weapon is used, there is massive reprisal. Now, that doesn't mean that they're not committing war crimes or crimes against humanity - there are several instances - that's just why it happens. But I think Palestinian resistance groups are realising that. These stabbing attacks are essentially ad hoc. Civilians fed up or mentally ill have gone for it. Last time Israel invaded the Gaza strip, the huge civilian death toll exacted against the Gazans versus the comparatively large Israeli military to civilian ratio made the world take notice. If it happens again, maybe Israelis will take notice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
I think Stephen Salaita has summed up the entire current conflict in one Tweet: https://twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/660484250567708673 Probably 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:I think Stephen Salaita has summed up the entire current conflict in one Tweet: https://twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/660484250567708673 Definitely and 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This kind of whataboutism was not very productive when Soviets and fellow travelers were doing it, and isn't very amusing every single time you do it here. I suggest you find other ways to contribute to the thread. Laughable question I know, but does this also mean that stuff like: Cat Mattress posted:Don't be silly, fair trials are for humans, not for Arabs. or CharlestheHammer posted:Jeez, I knew IC really hated Arabs, but not that much. Will actually be probatable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Laughable question I know, but does this also mean that stuff like: Yes, they will be, if I catch them. Anyone with platinum is encouraged to report when they occur. If you have any further questions or comments about D&D moderation, there is now a specific thread in QCS if you don't have PM's. Despite appearances, I will take comments there seriously when they are serious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
I see nothing wrong with my post. Like I am honestly not sure what is wrong with it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I see nothing wrong with my post. Your post contained nothing new and no content apart from an ad hominen. I don't see how this contributes to the discussion in a constructive manner?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:This isn't true vis a vis the 1992, 1999, or 2006. elections Come again? 1992 - First intifada leading to Rabin's election (violence -> "leftist" admin) 1999 - Terror wave during Netanyahu's early tenure leads to leftist government. 2006 - Sharon/Olmert admin, shift from Sharon led likud to Sharon led Kadima. What do these prove? Edit: oh and to further drive the nail home, were any significant number of settlements abanoned during any periods of 'relative calm' during the past two and a half decades? Were there even significant periods in which settlements weren't expanded? Did Israel stop building outposts? etc etc. quote:It's literally making their lives demonstrably worse (compare 1992-2000 to onwards), and further entrenching settlements as permanent, so yeah it's a bad idea. I did not refute that, I said it's a fine criteria to prioritize when you are not a member of an oppressed nation denied his freedom and natural self determination rights. In fact my post contained two paragraphs specifically about how denouncing palestinian violent resistance due to its lack of efficacy is a morally weak position. quote:Mostly denied by Dershowitz? Ask Clinton and the various American negotiators, which is not to say that they're necessarily correct, just that your point about a consensus is incorrect, and that's about as far that the USA, as Israel's patron, is willing to go. Do you see a better deal as possible? Demilitarization and the Jordan Valley might have been solvable, but there will never be a Labor government that gives up the settlements around Jerusalem and the bloc near Tel Aviv. That's as far as Israel will realistically go in any negotiations, and the calculus has swung hard in the direction of less concessions. Yes, on one hand we have american zionists such as clinton who insist that Barak truly 'unveiled the face of the palestinians' on the other hand we have Israeli members of the negotiation team who say that the way events unfolded during the talks is presented in a generally very pro-Israeli manner, we have Dershowitz and his friends on one camp ignoring the academic consensus while we generally have the rest of the world in the other camp. Here's a map I found on wiki: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/taba2001 Seems to corroborate the non-Dershowitzian recollection of events, 85%+ percent of the territory might have been on offer but you can clearly see that the territory is still eviscerated by Israeli settlements and access roads. Not to mention that requirement for permanent demilitarization which is not in dispute. On top of all of this, according to Shlomo Ben-Ami who was the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time the Barak admin participated in the talks under the assumption that it has no legitimacy to reify any agreement with the PA due to its lack of popular support with the Israeli public. And indeed the Barak admin suffered a crushing defeat in the elections soon after the conclusion of the Taba talks, which imo, further demonstrates that the Taba talks likely cannot be considered to be negotiations in good faith. Absurd Alhazred posted:I think that it is safe to say that the most effective way of getting Israel to change behavior, at least on a tactical level, is targeting the military. You can look at how the public mood changed from before to after ~60 of them were killed last summer. "Yeah, get at those bastards!" to "Uhh... this is not really working maybe we should reassess." Meanwhile attacks against civilians lead to harsher crackdowns and easier right-wing wins in subsequent elections, and nonviolent protests are less and less effective the more the judiciary shies away from enforcing rule of law whenever it would benefit Palestinians. Truly? That's not my impression. Soldiers are not perceived as legitimate targets by the Israeli public, I saw less "let's reasess" more "Bibi is a coward, the IDF could destroy Hamas in days if only it weren't for the leftist admin, tnu lezahal lenazeach!!". Not to mention that even though Hamas mostly killed IDF troops the perception of the war within Israel was still focused around the rockets which were (rightly) considered to be attacks against civilians, and this brings us to the point Hong XiuQuan brought up which is that it's generally rather difficult to specifically target IDF troops unless they make a ground invasion into Gaza or something along those lines. Anyway again, my opinion is that the Israeli public is not more understanding of legitimate acts of resistance directed against the occupying armed forces and in fact do not distinguish between the formed and terrorism directed against civilians. So... not sure. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Seems to corroborate the non-Dershowitzian recollection of events, 85%+ percent of the territory might have been on offer but you can clearly see that the territory is still eviscerated by Israeli settlements and access roads. Not to mention that requirement for permanent demilitarization which is not in dispute. On top of all of this, according to Shlomo Ben-Ami who was the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time the Barak admin participated in the talks under the assumption that it has no legitimacy to reify any agreement with the PA due to its lack of popular support with the Israeli public. And indeed the Barak admin suffered a crushing defeat in the elections soon after the conclusion of the Taba talks, which imo, further demonstrates that the Taba talks likely cannot be considered to be negotiations in good faith. Shlomo Ben-Ami is probably one of the most interesting, sympathetic and credible Israeli politician since Sharett. There's a great exchange between him and Finkelstein on Democracy now which probes into Taba: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-FLIBkTg8g <-- when he talks about Taba, you can really get into the nuance. He puts it down to the lack of political capital - they were on a thread already in the negotiations, then had to go fight an election. It's not so much a question of fault as a 'this is what the political situation was, it was pretty lovely and we did our best'. I prefer this so much more to 'Arafat was a demon who wanted the world'. emanresu posted:Truly? That's not my impression. Soldiers are not perceived as legitimate targets by the Israeli public, I saw less "let's reasess" more "Bibi is a coward, the IDF could destroy Hamas in days if only it weren't for the leftist admin, tnu lezahal lenazeach!!". Not to mention that even though Hamas mostly killed IDF troops the perception of the war within Israel was still focused around the rockets which were (rightly) considered to be attacks against civilians, and this brings us to the point Hong XiuQuan brought up which is that it's generally rather difficult to specifically target IDF troops unless they make a ground invasion into Gaza or something along those lines. Not so much that the Israeli public consider them legitimate targets or understand attacks against troops; more that when focus is on troops, Israeli public tend to want to bring troops back home (dying for nothing) vs wanting to punish the enemy in revenge for attacks against civilians. It's 1982 in Lebanon versus the last Gaza war. And it's why the Israeli propaganda focuses so much on spinning the risk to civilians or making Israelis feel under siege. Hong XiuQuan fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:' Israel spent 20 years occupying south Lebanon, suffering predominantly exclusively military losses. If this is the example for an effective method to drive out the IDF I'm not sure it inspires much hope. And in the latest massacre in Gaza, my perception is very different from yours and Absurd's, what I heard round these parts was "Tnu LeZahal Lenazeach" ("Let The IDF Win", to those less familiar with Israeli slogans this one gets thrown around when people perceive that the government, due to pressure from local and worldwide And again, really, while in the very least there's no doubt that limiting the attacks to be against uniformed combatants is at the very least a PR and moral victory, it's not like attacking IDF soldiers is trivial, the situation in Gaza in 2014 has very few similarities to the daily resistance in the west bank. So yeah, generally poo poo's hosed. I think that Finkelstein's suggestion of just having a throng of civilians march to the checkpoints and just try to cross them might be good, but we've seen last months in Gaza that the IDF doesn't really bulk at the notion of just mowing down protesters with automatic weapons, so I can't really fault anyone for not willingly marching into a meat grinder, although it would probably be a massive PR/Moral victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
poo poo's getting real, Jewish Home minister Uri Ariel publicly called for a massive forced transfer of an indigenous population out of Israel to 'willing countries'. - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4719639,00.html Stray cats and dogs. Also, this isn't actually gonna happen. Also, Uri Ariel is a stupid gently caress. Also Israeli leftists are gonna talk about this for weeks now ignoring everything else that might happen in the world cause "lol cats".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I think that it is safe to say that the most effective way of getting Israel to change behavior, at least on a tactical level, is targeting the military. You can look at how the public mood changed from before to after ~60 of them were killed last summer. "Yeah, get at those bastards!" to "Uhh... this is not really working maybe we should reassess." Meanwhile attacks against civilians lead to harsher crackdowns and easier right-wing wins in subsequent elections, and nonviolent protests are less and less effective the more the judiciary shies away from enforcing rule of law whenever it would benefit Palestinians. I'm not so sure about that - there's been little difference between the response to stabbing attacks against soldiers (quite a few of those targeted have been soldiers) and the response to stabbing attacks against civilians. I think it's rather a matter of difference in the situations. Last summer, Israel was going out of its way to put soldiers in harm's way by invading Gaza, and was able to end the risk to soldiers at any time with a unilateral pullout, with no fear of hostile troops pursuing or counterattacking or invading. Since the situation was almost totally under Israeli control, and the soldiers were purposely being put into harm's way for no particular strategic reason, there wasn't much real motivation to endure soldier deaths. On the other hand, if people - even uniformed, armed, active-duty soldiers - are being attacked in Israeli-controlled territory, it's totally different politically because if an attacker can strike at a soldier in a subway station or a military base, they could just as easily have struck at a civilian, and that's enough to cause the same fear response as actual attacks against civilians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
The IDF in Gaza right now would be a pretty horrific war of attrition. They are stabbing people in the loving streets, it takes a lot of hatred to just walk up and knife someone. What do you think they'll do when gigantic star of david APCs start coming down the streets
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:The IDF in Gaza right now would be a pretty horrific war of attrition. They are stabbing people in the loving streets, it takes a lot of hatred to just walk up and knife someone. What do you think they'll do when gigantic star of david APCs start coming down the streets I don't think stabbing an APC would do much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:I don't think stabbing an APC would do much. No but what I am saying is that the atmosphere is not right for the IDF to trample over Gaza. They might actually lose this time
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:No but what I am saying is that the atmosphere is not right for the IDF to trample over Gaza. They might actually lose this time Define 'lose', please. Also bear in mind that Gaza is a secluded ghetto where Israel treats the entire civilian population as enemy combatants, in the West Bank the situation is significantly different where the Jewish and Palestinian populations can quite easily reach each other and the IDF is forced to merely treat the entire civilian population like outlaws and rioters. Just because knives work in the low-intensity daily conflicts in the west bank doesn't have any bearing on the fire and brimstone doctrine the IDF employs in Gaza. Not to mention that given that popular disapproval within Israel to the tactics applied in Protective Edge you're far more likely to see a repeat of Cast Lead tactics than you're likely to see IDF soldiers actually advancing through the streets of Gaza on foot and in APCs, that is, more 'level the entire neighborhood first, move in later' compared to 'move in and shoot everything that moves'. I think that with all the "Israeli genocide" rhetoric that some people have internalized there is a tendency to forget that even in Protective Edge that IDF actually 'held back', that is not to say that they've used a proportionate or a reasonable amount of force but that modern combined arms forces can inflict an absolutely insane amount of destruction and make even lesser efforts to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. (why do I feel this is gonna start a multi-page discussion in which I'll be required to empirically prove that the IDF could have theoretically inflicted even more destruction on the Gaza strip...) emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Define 'lose', please. Not to say that IDF Couldn't do it, but what I am saying is that it would be the bloodiest conflict in Gaza to date if it happened now because the moderates are rapidly starting to radicalize in both the west bank and Gaza aswell as many parts of Israel. it's a country wide revolt not a gaza problem
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Two knife attacks today, 3 stabbed in Rishon Lezion and one stabbed in Netanya, in the attack in Rishon one of the victims managed to wrestle the assailant and neutralize him without using firearms, in Netanya the assailant was shot and injured moderately by an off duty police officer as he was attempting to flee the scene. In both attacks after the assailants were stopped a lynching mob gathered and tried to get to them but was stopped by the security forces, in Netanya one Israeli was arrested for apparently being a little too assertive with his desire to lynch an injured man. Small sample base but the police in both attacks seem to have been somewhat less trigger happy than what we've come to expect the past couple of weeks, I wonder if this has anything to do with the stern talking to Kerry has given Netanyahu last week. LeoMarr posted:Not to say that IDF Couldn't do it, but what I am saying is that it would be the bloodiest conflict in Gaza to date if it happened now because the moderates are rapidly starting to radicalize in both the west bank and Gaza aswell as many parts of Israel. it's a country wide revolt not a gaza problem The current trend is that every ground invasion into Gaza is the new bloodiest conflict to date, so I think that's a pretty likely assumption regardless of the situation in the West Bank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:17
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Violence hardens Israeli public opinion and increases support for the creeping annexation enterprise while non-violence also hardens Israeli public opinion and increases support for the creeping annexation enterprise. Quite the dilemma, to be certain. I mean while may be of the 'it's better to live on your knees than to die on your feet' persuasion, it seems rather natural for members of an oppressed population to prefer dying on their feet. I think it's a terrible and predictable comment that settlements grow fastest where the violence and political opposition to them is least prevalant. If one wanted to talk about perverse incentives.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:The IDF in Gaza right now would be a pretty horrific war of attrition. They are stabbing people in the loving streets, it takes a lot of hatred to just walk up and knife someone. What do you think they'll do when gigantic star of david APCs start coming down the streets It's a lot easier to prevent stabbings when you're allowed to shoot anyone who's not wearing the same uniform that you are, you're not standing in a crowded public place full of people you aren't allowed to shoot, and you can call in loving tanks and artillery support and airstrikes if you think there's more suspicious people around than you can shoot. Why do you think it would any worse now than it was during the last several actual wars when Israel was bombing hospitals into dust and calling on artillery strikes on children? Do you think that the people of Gaza are angrier over a few violent incidents in East Jerusalem than they are over the past few years of Gaza being randomly dismantled one building at a time? Lumping supposed public sentiments in Gaza and the West Bank together as if they're in any way similar is a major mistake, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's a lot easier to prevent stabbings when you're allowed to shoot anyone who's not wearing the same uniform that you are, you're not standing in a crowded public place full of people you aren't allowed to shoot, and you can call in loving tanks and artillery support and airstrikes if you think there's more suspicious people around than you can shoot. Why do you think it would any worse now than it was during the last several actual wars when Israel was bombing hospitals into dust and calling on artillery strikes on children? Do you think that the people of Gaza are angrier over a few violent incidents in East Jerusalem than they are over the past few years of Gaza being randomly dismantled one building at a time? Lumping supposed public sentiments in Gaza and the West Bank together as if they're in any way similar is a major mistake, I think. Well yeah when you can shoot anyone who looks at you with a slightly discontent look it's a lot easier to pick targets. But this Intifada isn't isolated to Gaza.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:poo poo's getting real, Jewish Home minister Uri Ariel publicly called for a massive forced transfer of an indigenous population out of Israel to 'willing countries'. - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4719639,00.html Exhibit A: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Exhibit A: Ask yourself what you would have done if I had posted this
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ask yourself what you would have done if I had posted this I would have asked you how come you're so in with liberal Israeli social media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Exhibit A: Looks to be the work of Palestian reptillians
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:poo poo's getting real, Jewish Home minister Uri Ariel publicly called for a massive forced transfer of an indigenous population out of Israel to 'willing countries'. - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4719639,00.html Why is it that your government ministers seem to be dumber then the Tea party in the USA?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:46
|
|