Israel/Palestine

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Israel/Palestine

«‹›698 »

(Thread IKs: Main Paineframe, Irony Be My Shield, punishedkissinger)

Dabir: Nov 10, 2012

I'm the bike horn

E: well this was a good way to start a new page

# ? Apr 4, 2016 17:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 12:11

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Xandu posted:

I definitely get that vibe you're talking about and he makes that point clearly. But then he goes into stuff like this and he loses me.

and

It does look a little weird at first, but it goes in a little bit of a different direction from the usual "Jews run the country" racist spiel - the bits about "sociocultural factors" and his constant asides about how Jews used to face a lot more discrimination are out of place in that narrative. I think we're still missing the proper context for his statements, and I believe that context is this:

quote:

And the answer for me is not actually an assault on elites, but their reform, including an aggressive critique of Zionism inside Jewish life. Because Zionism is a discriminatory dangerous ideology, and premised on ideas of Jewish victimization that do not reflect our experience in any way.

In other words, he believes that the narrative of victimization that he and I were raised with is a fundamental aspect of Zionism's popularity in America, and that the vast majority of Zionists and Zionist supporters honestly believe that Israel needs to exist to protect the downtrodden and oppressed American Jews from the anti-Semitic establishment, and must be defended as the one true defense against the second Holocaust. He thinks that by asserting that American Jews are not weak and powerless in America, he is implicitly saying that American Jews do not need a nation of their own in order to escape oppression in America, and therefore knocking down the vital pillar that he thinks American Zionism depends on. He's pointing out the power of the Jewish lobby and the existence of powerful Jewish figures not because he's trying to lay out a conspiracy theory, but because he's trying to indicate that the glass ceiling has been broken and American Jews are not helpless political pawns who are neglected and hated by politicians. Personally, I think it's a somewhat naive view of Zionism, but what he's taken away from his own numerous personal experiences with Zionism and American Judaism, and it's tough to avoid generalizing that experience from one community to the broader population.

There's also the fact that there's a very thin, often-hazy line between what's seen as an acceptable political statement and what's seen as vile anti-Semitism, and it's a line that's typically far thicker when talking about non-Jews. For example, I've never seen anyone called racist for asserting that the Cuban exile community in the US has a disproportionate influence on US policy in regards to Cuba, even if they go beyond the substantial Cuban-American population in a vital swing state and point out the Cuban-American community's well-funded lobbying organizations, politically-active wealthy businessmen and media moguls, and prominent political figures. Asserting that the American Jewish community has a disproportionate influence on US policy in regards to Israel and issues affecting it, on the other hand, is already teetering on the edge of being accused of anti-Semitism, and attempting to add more details by pointing to specific lobbyist organizations, political and media figures, and so on only deepens people's suspicions. It's a different standard, and makes it very difficult to talk about a lot of things because reality sometimes encroaches on territory that has traditionally been the realm of anti-Semitic fantasy. It leads to one of the more awkward sentiments I've seen in the left-leaning Jewish community - that uncomfortable fear that the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories might really come true and therefore encourage anti-Semitism. The right deals with it by just shouting "look, it's anti-Semitism" over and over to drown out all criticism, but the left handles it with an odd flavor of impotent fear. For example, Zionists often demand the support of the Jewish diaspora and push them to try to influence their own countries in favor of Israel, but accusing a diaspora Jew of supporting Israel over their own country is something that has a long history of anti-Semitic associations...which makes it really awkward and difficult to talk about when a particular diaspora Jew does in fact prioritize Israel over their own country, because any mention of "dual loyalties" just prompts accusations of anti-Semitism. Sometimes there really are clearly, unambiguously, definitely dual loyalties at work. It's a super difficult subject, because anti-Semites have been accusing Jews of dual loyalties for hundreds of years...but sometimes a diaspora Jew does have dual loyalties. Jonathan Pollard (and the American Jewish community's awkward relationship with him) is the premier American example, but there have been other figures in the diaspora that raised similar fears as well, ranging from Fiamma Nirenstein to Meir Kahane. And every time, particularly when it's something that's been pushed by Israel itself, there's a palpable sense of discomfort in the local diaspora community that basically boils down to "stop making the anti-Semites think they were right by doing the very things they used to make up about us, you jerks". At some point, "anti-Semites say things that sound like that too" ceases to be a magic protective charm that bars all discussion.

Going back to Weiss's statements, he's not saying that Jews secretly rule the country. But he is pointing to the fact that American Jews do have political power and influence, just like many other groups, and that it is most likely somewhat disproportionate - Jews aren't facing anywhere near the same legislative discrimination that Hispanics, the LGBT community, and even women face in many parts of the country. Moreover, the way Jewish organizations try to use that power and influence - even if they fail - should not be immune to criticism, and the Jewish community which provides the majority of those groups' support is the most appropriate place to target that criticism. If people can't distinguish between that and a neo-Nazi conspiracy theory, that should be their problem...but it isn't, and I typically avoid the subject of anti-Semitism because I know that no matter how many caveats and qualifiers I include, how many sources and examples I cite, and how much I attempt to avoid the inevitable, within a page someone will have quoted a small piece of it out of context, pretended to misunderstand it in order to dismiss the whole thing, and will derail the entire thread into accusatory mudslinging. That's something that's present in the discourse in the Jewish community too, and there are plenty on the right who will deem any anti-Zionist Jew as a "self-hating Jew" who has been driven by Stockholm syndrome and a freakish, toadyish desparation to escape anti-Semitism by attacking my other Jews in order to win the approval of the anti-Semitic gentiles (and yes, I find the "self-hating Jew" characterization incredibly offensive). But since I'm already well into the deep end, have an article I've been sitting on for quite a while, which will hopefully give you another angle on the Mondoweiss statements you quote - it tackles a somewhat similar path, and hits on some of the same notes with a different tone that's a little more illuminating.

http://www.jta.org/2015/12/15/news-opinion/opinion/op-ed-why-good-for-the-jews-is-bad-for-the-jews

quote:

Ever wonder if Bernie Sanders is good for the Jews? How about Andy Warhol? The pope? 9/11? The Diaspora? Alexander the Great? Drake? The year 5775?

These questions and many more have all been asked and answered. Apparently a lot of people still see this as a useful metric.

“Is it good for the Jews?” is as much a punchline as a question. And yet, whether the question is asked explicitly or not, there remains a corner of our community that brings a “good for the Jews” mentality to every concern.

A recent JTA Op-Ed was titled “Why campus anti-racism protests are bad for the Jews.” The headline is problematic because it assumes that Jews want to do what is good for the Jews. And once these Jews understand #BlackLivesMatter is bad for the Jews — because, the Op-Ed argues, some of its activists support Palestinian claims against Israel or there’s been pressure on campus administrators to silence similar Jewish demands — well, they will oppose #BlackLivesMatter.

This is an excellent example of the dangers of “good for the Jews.” First, it suggests that Jews have uniform interests. Second, it prioritizes how something impacts Jews over how it affects others. Third, it reinforces a communal identity built around isolation, vulnerability and fear; genocide hovers, always.

Good and bad are binary. Communal interests, however, lie on a continuum. Jews are diverse. We are liberal and conservative; rich and poor; radical and reactionary. We are of all races, ethnicities and sexual orientations. Suggesting that our interests are singular is disingenuous. Telling Jews (and non-Jews) that you are either for or against us is manipulative. It is also at the root of fascistic tendencies.

In life, sometimes we put our needs first; sometimes we put first the needs of others. Viewing life through a “good for the Jews” prism encourages us to place our multivalent selves at the center of every conversation. Only our needs matter. But it’s often true that what’s “good for the Jews” doesn’t necessarily help Jews all that much — and can be downright harmful to those who need a hand most. As the expression goes, sometimes it’s not about you.

In the immediate shadow of the Holocaust or pogroms, Jews were understandably guided by a sense of their own precariousness. That’s what should happen when governments are committed to your annihilation. But 60 years later, particularly in the United States, it is wrong to pretend that Jews, as a community, are similarly vulnerable. Jews are the wealthiest religious group in the United States, and with the exception of Hindus, the most educated. Two of President Barack Obama’s four chiefs of staff have been Jews with deep ties to the community.

Given our unprecedented standing and influence, denying our collective privilege can lead to complicity in oppression. This is painfully true when we do so in disputes with communities that might understandably be guided by a sense of their own precariousness.

The “good for the Jews” mentality is particularly troubling when applied to issues with a racial component. Take affirmative action, which is back in the news. In the 1970s, every major Jewish civil rights group opposed affirmative action in the landmark case Bakke v. University of California, which banned the use of racial quotas to increase university enrollment of students of color. Tipping the college admission scales in support of “minority” students, male Jewish leaders declared, was bad for the Jews. As Rabbi Robert Marx noted at the time, this assertion was based on misinformation and miscalculations. And it broke the heart of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who had worked so closely with Jewish groups to end legal segregation.

These same Jewish leaders assumed affirmative action helped blacks at the expense of whites; after all, Jews had benefited from “merit-based” admissions. Yet not all Jews are white. And, to date, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are women, including Jewish women — whose exclusion from Jewish leadership gave lie to the notion that a singular entity known as “the Jews” exists in the first place. Even on its own terms, affirmative action was both good and bad for Jews.

Jewish leaders believed our responsibility was to put the interests of Jews first. There was no evidence that affirmative action, even pro-“minority” quotas, would impede Jewish progress. In short, the beneficiaries needed affirmative action more than relatively few Jews might be (marginally) hurt by it. Needed it and deserved it.

Finally, Jewish leaders saw a slippery slope. They feared that quotas to help “minorities” would inevitably lead to quotas against Jews. They believed the Jewish position in American society was precarious; too precarious to take any chances. That was and remains a miscalculation. There are communities living in a precarious position. Some of these communities most need affirmative action.

Jews have a fundamental interest in a more equitable society. This is true for practical reasons: inequitable societies are less stable, and instability leads to scapegoating. And too often we are the goats. It is also true for moral reasons: Our tradition has all kinds of mechanisms for ensuring greater equality as a reflection of our values. These include Kuppah, a communal fund to support the poor, and shmitta, a Sabbath year where we forgive debts and provide extra resources to the poor, to help balance the scales.

Today, most major Jewish organizations support diversity-based affirmative action, but there are many examples of communal confusion inspired by efforts to divine our collective interest. Some Jews support fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline because it hurts oil-producing enemies of Israel, even while it damages local communities and undermines more comprehensive efforts to combat climate change. Some in the Jewish community soft-pedal the Armenian genocide to curry favor with Turkey, when that relationship is “good for the Jews.”

So what’s the bottom line? When we focus on what is “good for the Jews,” we often get it wrong. For us and for others.

It is past time that we retire this mentality. It limits a community that does amazing things when it looks past its own nose. And that would be good for … everyone.

# ? Apr 4, 2016 17:54

bango skank: Jan 15, 2008; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Avshalom posted:

drat, the auditions for the next Jamiroquai look serious.

# ? Apr 4, 2016 20:18

Avshalom: Feb 14, 2012; by Lowtax

i often wonder if i'm good for the jews, and the answer is, no

# ? Apr 5, 2016 01:21

Kim Jong Il: Aug 16, 2003

Your voluminous womb pumping out thousands of mini-Ariels is good for the Jews.

# ? Apr 5, 2016 02:41

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

Smotrich has been a on roll today, seems like he's unwilling to give up in this particular race to the bottom and he's really firing on all cylinders:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/mk-smotrich-tweets-for-separating-jews-from-arabs-in-maternity-wards/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210368

tl;dr: it started with him saying that Jewish women should not be expected to tolerate the presence of arab women in maternity wards due to the tendency of arabs to throw 'loud haflas' which are incompatible with the delicate and reserved jewish sensibilities, it quickly escalated from that point onward when his wife proclaimed that she will never allow a non jew to deliver her baby or give her medical care.

In more substantial news it seems Israel is collectively punishing the population of Hebron by cutting out their power supply - http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.712894

# ? Apr 5, 2016 17:34

Ultramega: Jul 9, 2004

That is insane. All of that poo poo you posted.

According to Revital, �Whoever is not a Jew is problematic for me. The first moment when a child enters the world is a holy moment; pure, Jewish. I really wanted Jewish hands to be the first to touch my child.

This is like something avshalom would post.

Ultramega fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Apr 6, 2016

# ? Apr 6, 2016 02:41

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

i heard the gaza fishing zone was increased for Palestinians recently. what was the context behind that decision. it seemed out of nowhere

# ? Apr 6, 2016 02:46

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

Ultramega posted:

http://mepeace.org/forum/topics/netanyahu-quote-from-1989

OK?

what does that have to do with the west being riled up against violent islamism by 9/11?

:iiam:

hakimashou fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Apr 6, 2016

# ? Apr 6, 2016 08:55

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I know I am going to regret asking this, but do you actually think Palestinians were behind the 9/11 attacks and/or are a credible threat to the USA, or are you arguing that Americans are too stupid to tell foreigners apart and that's why America has to be an enemy of Palestine and an ally of the country most of the attackers were from?

I guess my question is, are you arguing that you personally are too stupid to know who was behind 9/11 or that Americans are?

# ? Apr 6, 2016 09:45

Dabir: Nov 10, 2012

He's saying it's Americans and he's right.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 10:19

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

VitalSigns posted:

I know I am going to regret asking this, but do you actually think Palestinians were behind the 9/11 attacks and/or are a credible threat to the USA, or are you arguing that Americans are too stupid to tell foreigners apart and that's why America has to be an enemy of Palestine and an ally of the country most of the attackers were from?

I guess my question is, are you arguing that you personally are too stupid to know who was behind 9/11 or that Americans are?

i am arguing that i personally am too stupid to know who was behind 9/11 or that americans are, yes.

An-y-way.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 11:44

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

hakimashou posted:

It's that pretty much the whole western world and all its friends, even its friends in the Arab world, are now very hostile to islamism of the kind espoused by the likes of HAMAS, islamic jihad, et al.

Suicide bombers and "islamic resistance movements" and people wearing black masks shooting AK-47s in the air chanting Allahu Ackbar aren't going to garner much sympathy anymore, instead only hostility, even mortal hostility.

Plus Israel has been able to say "see, this is what we've had to deal with, now you have to deal with it too, now you know where we are coming from."

What I mean is, this ^

# ? Apr 6, 2016 11:45

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Real hurthling! posted:

i heard the gaza fishing zone was increased for Palestinians recently. what was the context behind that decision. it seemed out of nowhere

It's probably linked to Israel-Turkey reconciliation, as Hamas has been spreading rumors for a while that Turkey was asking for Gaza concessions in return for normalization of relations.

On the other hand, Israel has heavily restricted cement imports into the Gaza strip, claiming that the deputy director of the Palestinian economy ministry had requisitioned some of it without permission. However, it's unclear whether that's a measure aimed at Hamas, who is in control of the Gaza strip, or the PA, which is nominally supposed to be in charge of both Gaza and the Gaza reconstruction. Israel has also been cutting power to Palestinian municipalities again lately, switching the cuts around to different cities to ensure that as many people as possible spend a couple of days without power.

Meanwhile, the Israeli High Court has been subjected to heavy criticism from Netanyahu's administration - most notably a scathing attack speech from Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked - after it shut down part of a natural gas deal Netanyahu was personally pushing. Between this and the heavy criticism the court routinely faces from the Haredi and the Chief Rabbinate, both of whom they've pissed off recently, I wonder if the judicial branch is going to be facing tough times ahead?

The IDF recently launched a weapons amnesty program - anyone who has military equipment at home that they shouldn't have are invited to come and turn it in to the IDF, no questions asked. All sorts of poo poo has been turned in, to a legitimately terrifying point: if this much stuff was stockpiled by people who don't really care and jumped at the opportunity to get rid of it, what kind of arsenal might have been built up by groups who intentionally stockpile it for nefarious reasons?

quote:

Civilians responding to the IDF's call to hand over military and other types of equipment have, over the past three weeks, turned over 160 weapons, and hundreds of thousands of ammunition rounds, according to Col. Meirv Brikman, Commander of the IDF's Equipment Center, a part of the Technology and Logistics Branch.

"We received hundreds of grenades. Explosive bricks. Assault rifles and hand guns. A missile launcher from the 1980s, and landmines," Brikman said. "Holding these at home is very dangerous. The campaign to return them has seen many civilians respond to the call," she added.

Some items returned were very old, and originated from past wars, Brikman said. "Sometimes, we were surprised by what we saw. We do not ask people why they possessed them, in line with the terms of our campaign," she added.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 15:09

Zulily Zoetrope: Jun 1, 2011; Muldoon

hakimashou posted:

What I mean is, this ^

You keep repeating that point, but you're not answering the question that's being asked. Do you believe that America does support Israel over Palestine because Palestinians are filthy browns and the voting public is too stupid and/or racist to tell them apart, or that America should support Israel over Palestine because Palestinians are filthy browns and therefore are bringing it on themselves by insisting on being Muslim?

It's a pretty important distinction.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 21:11

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

Kajeesus posted:

You keep repeating that point, but you're not answering the question that's being asked. Do you believe that America does support Israel over Palestine because Palestinians are filthy browns and the voting public is too stupid and/or racist to tell them apart, or that America should support Israel over Palestine because Palestinians are filthy browns and therefore are bringing it on themselves by insisting on being Muslim?

It's a pretty important distinction.

I don't know what 'filthy browns' means and I dont know what you mean by 'insisting on being muslims' or any of the other bizarre gibberish you posted there.

What I do know is that in the past, it used to be more tolerable in many western eyes to be a violent islamist. This was true of the mujahideen in the soviet afghan war and also of anti-Israel militants.

Then something changed, what was it? Ah yes 9/11 and all the rest..

I suspect that 9/11 doomed any hope the palestinians had of both being violent and islamist and also at the same time having friends that mattered in the world. People got very serious about fighting terrorism, most specifically terrorism perpetrated by islamists. Part of anti-terrorism is deciding "if you are a terrorist it doesn't matter what your cause is, no end justifies your means."

So, again, Israel has been able to say "9/11, charlie hebdo, brussels attacks, paris attacks, madrid train station, 7/7, etc etc, this is what we have been dealing with for decades, terrorism just like this, suicide terrorism. It's one fight. Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Jamaat e Islami, Islamic Jihad and HAMAS. One fight."

# ? Apr 6, 2016 22:47

Yardbomb: Jul 11, 2011; What's with the eh... bretonnian dance, sir?

hakimashou posted:

I don't know what 'filthy browns' means and I dont know what you mean by 'insisting on being muslims' or any of the other bizarre gibberish you posted there.

Come the gently caress on, with your whole post but really with this. I don't know who you're trying to kid by pretending there's not an entire culture of racism around "the terrorists", when most often people are trying to say "the arabs" there or just people sufficiently "foreign" enough.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 22:51

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

hakimashou posted:

I don't know what 'filthy browns' means and I dont know what you mean by 'insisting on being muslims' or any of the other bizarre gibberish you posted there.

What I do know is that in the past, it used to be more tolerable in many western eyes to be a violent islamist. This was true of the mujahideen in the soviet afghan war and also of anti-Israel militants.

Then something changed, what was it? Ah yes 9/11 and all the rest..

I suspect that 9/11 doomed any hope the palestinians had of both being violent and islamist and also at the same time having friends that mattered in the world. People got very serious about fighting terrorism, most specifically terrorism perpetrated by islamists. Part of anti-terrorism is deciding "if you are a terrorist it doesn't matter what your cause is, no end justifies your means."

So, again, Israel has been able to say "9/11, charlie hebdo, brussels attacks, paris attacks, madrid train station, 7/7, etc etc, this is what we have been dealing with for decades, terrorism just like this, suicide terrorism. It's one fight. Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Jamaat e Islami, Islamic Jihad and HAMAS. One fight."

No human being on Earth is anti-terrorist as you have described it, and no nation either. The United States did not bomb the Tamil Tigers, or the ETA.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 22:52

Zulily Zoetrope: Jun 1, 2011; Muldoon

hakimashou posted:

I don't know what 'filthy browns' means and I dont know what you mean by 'insisting on being muslims' or any of the other bizarre gibberish you posted there.

What I do know is that in the past, it used to be more tolerable in many western eyes to be a violent islamist. This was true of the mujahideen in the soviet afghan war and also of anti-Israel militants.

Then something changed, what was it? Ah yes 9/11 and all the rest..

I suspect that 9/11 doomed any hope the palestinians had of both being violent and islamist and also at the same time having friends that mattered in the world. People got very serious about fighting terrorism, most specifically terrorism perpetrated by islamists. Part of anti-terrorism is deciding "if you are a terrorist it doesn't matter what your cause is, no end justifies your means."

So, again, Israel has been able to say "9/11, charlie hebdo, brussels attacks, paris attacks, madrid train station, 7/7, etc etc, this is what we have been dealing with for decades, terrorism just like this, suicide terrorism. It's one fight. Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Jamaat e Islami, Islamic Jihad and HAMAS. One fight."

Do you agree that America is correct in supporting Israel because Muslims did 9/11, or do you observe that America happens to support Israel because Muslims did 9/11?

I'm not asking you to repeat your previous points, I want you to clarify your stance. I don't think I can make it any simpler than this.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:04

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

Yardbomb posted:

Come the gently caress on, with your whole post but really with this. I don't know who you're trying to kid by pretending there's not an entire culture of racism around "the terrorists", when most often people are trying to say "the arabs" there or just people sufficiently "foreign" enough.

Maybe so, but wouldn't this only matter if HAMAS and other jihad groups in palestine stopped using terrorism? As long as they do perpetrate terrorist attacks, then they really do fall under the umbrella of 'terrorists' and the rest is a moot point.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are just two out of many terrorist groups that call for 'death to the United States and Israel.'

There is literally no path to victory for Hamas. It cannot win any violent struggle against Israel. The fantasy that somehow if the palestinians 'martyr' enough of their children that the world will turn against Israel is idiocy and a crime against decency.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:07

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

Kajeesus posted:

Do you agree that America is correct in supporting Israel because Muslims did 9/11, or do you observe that America happens to support Israel because Muslims did 9/11?

I'm not asking you to repeat your previous points, I want you to clarify your stance. I don't think I can make it any simpler than this.

observe

To further clarify though, obviously 9/11 isn't the only reason the US supports israel, but I do believe that 9/11 did doom jihad in palestine and was a catastrophe for their movement.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:08

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

hakimashou posted:

Maybe so, but wouldn't this only matter if HAMAS and other jihad groups in palestine stopped using terrorism? As long as they do perpetrate terrorist attacks, then they really do fall under the umbrella of 'terrorists' and the rest is a moot point.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are just two out of many terrorist groups that call for 'death to the United States and Israel.'

There is literally no path to victory for Hamas. It cannot win any violent struggle against Israel. The fantasy that somehow if the palestinians 'martyr' enough of their children that the world will turn against Israel is idiocy and a crime against decency.

It's amazing how people will insist that you should die on your knees, always, and that dying on your feet is criminal. Everyone must be a quisling, if they are to be moral.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:13

Yardbomb: Jul 11, 2011; What's with the eh... bretonnian dance, sir?

Brainiac Five posted:

It's amazing how people will insist that you should die on your knees, always, and that dying on your feet is criminal. Everyone must be a quisling, if they are to be moral.

Don't you see, the real path to victory here lies in quietly being ground down by the force already happy to do so and whom you make the job easier for in doing.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:16

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Ah, yes, the notorious Islamists of the Palestinian Authority.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:21

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

"Look I'm not saying I agree with her being raped, I'm just observing that men are obviously more likely to rape a woman who dresses scantily."

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:24

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

So, almost 2 years ago Hamas and other jihad groups in Gaza tried violence in earnest against Israel, giving it their best shot. The Israelis responded with Operation Protective Edge and continued until the attacks on Israel stopped.

2 years on, hindsight 20/20, was it a good or bad choice?

# ? Apr 7, 2016 08:07

Ultramega: Jul 9, 2004

It wasn't but here's a great decision: putting you on ignore.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.713121 This is not related at all but I really liked this last article by gideon levy. Touched on a trend I noticed in other publications(ynet, jpost etc)in that so many people are lining up to call the attacker in hebron a terrorist and a criminal but nobody seems that eager to call him a man, or a human.

Ultramega fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Apr 7, 2016

# ? Apr 7, 2016 08:20

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

In interview two days ago Education Minister Naftali Bennett had decreed that he will remove mentions of the Green Line from the curriculum for all Israeli students, he added "I do not acknowledge the existence of the Green Line, there is only one Israel"

I can't find a reputable English source citing this statement but here it is in Hebrew on NRG: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/766/053.html

# ? Apr 7, 2016 10:19

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

hakimashou posted:

So, almost 2 years ago Hamas and other jihad groups in Gaza tried violence in earnest against Israel, giving it their best shot. The Israelis responded with Operation Protective Edge and continued until the attacks on Israel stopped.

2 years on, hindsight 20/20, was it a good or bad choice?

Oh come on, you have to wait more than two years before you can tell such a huge lie and expect to not get called on it. On june 30th, Hamas fired its first rocket since 2012, in response to Israeli airstrikes which killed a Hamas member. No honest, clear-headed observer could come to the conclusion that Hamas instigated protective edge. Or brother's keeper, for that matter.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:19

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Ultramega posted:

It wasn't but here's a great decision: putting you on ignore.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.713121 This is not related at all but I really liked this last article by gideon levy. Touched on a trend I noticed in other publications(ynet, jpost etc)in that so many people are lining up to call the attacker in hebron a terrorist and a criminal but nobody seems that eager to call him a man, or a human.

That article's paywalled, but yeah, I've been noticing similar trends as well - the media is going out of their way to humanize him in a way that it actively avoids when an Arab has been accused of a crime. For example, there are lots of sympathetic articles about how his family loves him and they're having such hard time, while the families of Arab attackers are only mentioned in the context of collective punishment, accusations that they got off too easy and that the IDF should have "finished the job". When an Israeli family doesn't have their son's corpse returned to them, it's a tearful story about those poor devastated mothers; when a Palestinian family doesn't get their son's body back it's described dispassionately as an anti-terror measure without the slightest hint of humanizing the family. When an Arab mother claims that their child was innocent and unfairly accused, the resulting article is practically making fun of it. When an Israeli family makes the same claim, MKs line up to support it and the media fills with articles claiming that to the mother of a soldier, every soldier is their son and this shooter is every Jewish mother's son. When Arab MKs meet with the families of accused Arab murderers, there's such a huge outrage that they get suspended from the Knesset; when MKs meet with the family of an accused Jewish murderer it's par for the course. Many articles have referred to the shooter as an innocent, scared child who was overwhelmed by emotion and made a bad choice, but it's hard to take the "don't punish this poor kid for a bit of bad judgement" vibe seriously when I remember just how outraged the Israeli public was when the IDF Chief of Staff suggested that maybe the troops shouldn't gun down 13-year-old girls with scissors.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 15:13

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

hakimashou posted:

So, almost 2 years ago Hamas and other jihad groups in Gaza tried violence in earnest against Israel, giving it their best shot. The Israelis responded with Operation Protective Edge and continued until the attacks on Israel stopped.

2 years on, hindsight 20/20, was it a good or bad choice?

Basically your argument is that Israel is better at violence than the Palestinians.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 15:22

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Holy poo poo, Israel. Didn't expect much from Oren, but this is pretty hosed up.

quote:

Bernie Sanders owes Israel an apology for accusing it of a "blood libel," the country's former ambassador to the United States said Thursday, after the Democratic presidential candidate, who is Jewish, suggested in an interview that Israel had killed more than 10,000 people in Gaza.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...1#ixzz45ABovi88

# ? Apr 7, 2016 18:37

Miruvor: Jan 19, 2007; Pillbug

Oren's always been a frothing, true-believer, every interview he's done for news networks kinda confirms that.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 19:09

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Xandu posted:

Holy poo poo, Israel. Didn't expect much from Oren, but this is pretty hosed up.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...1#ixzz45ABovi88

At least they didn't call him a race traitor, I guess?

# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:01

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

How many people did they actually murder?

# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:06

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

A couple thousand in 2014, so he was definitely wrong, but if you go back to include all their conflicts, it's a lot.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:28

Zulily Zoetrope: Jun 1, 2011; Muldoon

If he was referring specifically to Protective Edge, the UNHRC says 2,251 Palestinians were killed in military action, so he would be way off.

If he means military casualties since 1949, or deaths from exposure or treatable illness due to lack of infrastructure, I have no clue, but 10,000 would be a conservative estimate for either.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:28

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

ANIME AKBAR posted:

Oh come on, you have to wait more than two years before you can tell such a huge lie and expect to not get called on it. On june 30th, Hamas fired its first rocket since 2012, in response to Israeli airstrikes which killed a Hamas member. No honest, clear-headed observer could come to the conclusion that Hamas instigated protective edge. Or brother's keeper, for that matter.

You narrowed it down!

Was that a good or bad choice, in retrospect?

Did it lead to fewer israeli airstrikes or more, was the end result a stronger or weaker, richer or poorer, better off or worse off Gaza?

# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:31

hakimashou: Jul 15, 2002; Upset Trowel

Cat Mattress posted:

Basically your argument is that Israel is better at violence than the Palestinians.

Yeah, way way way way way better. So, it's a crime against decency to cheerlead palestinian violence. It's always doomed to fail, they're always worse off after than they were before, its a fight they can't win and therefore must not engage in.

The notion that if the Palestinians 'martyr' enough of their children the world will turn on Israel is pure bunk. It will never happen. Maybe in a parallel world where there wasn't a huge international fight to the death again salafist islamist terrorists like HAMAS, things might possibly have turned out differently, but it isn't that way.

Cheerleading Palestinian violence is unpardonable. For one, it is self-defeating. The more violent the Palestinians are, the worse off they will be. The more violent they are, the more of them will die violently.

Not that I think cheerleaders of palestinian terrorism are actually perversely motivated by this, I just don't believe they've done a very good job of thinking through the issue.

This is why i think any advocacy for the Palestinians that also condones or endorses violence by Hamas and other jihad groups is without any merit at all and of no value to anyone, and not even a valid position to hold in a serious discussion.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 12:11

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

Bernie said he belied 10,000 innocents were killed which is basically off by a factor of 10 or so; 946 by Israeli estimates, 1563 by UN estimates. Though he literally said he's not sure about the numbers so unless you were utterly disingenuous like the folks trying to smear him with this statement are you probably shouldn't be concerned.

Bernie Sanders posted:

because I don't remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right?�

# ? Apr 7, 2016 22:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Israel/Palestine

«‹›698 »