|
Kim Jong Il posted:That's fine, but Jewish Voice for Peace targeting vulnerable LGBT youth at the parade in New York last week was not. What on earth dude? Those are LGBT Israeli activists, they want LGBT rights and they don't want them used as an excuse for the occupation and the mistreatment of palestinians by the Israeli government. These are not anti-occupation activists who came to poo poo on the LGBT parade.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
No, they're vulnerable teens who have in many cases escaped repressive, ultra-orthodox environments. It's not hard - if Palestinians want to end "pinkwashing", they can try not being virulently anti-gay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
There's a terrible tendency in (not only but often) pro-Israeli discourse to treat human rights as if they're the subject of horse-trading, of which that post is a great example.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Kadima wasn't a reaction to Gaza, Sharon formed it because pulling out of Gaza split Likud. It was formed in 2005, not 2002 - saying it was formed in response to political violence is preposterous. Oh, so Kadima wasn't a "reaction" to Gaza, it was just a direct result of and direct response to Gaza. And I'm not sure what 2002 has to do with anything, since it isn't even close to the end of the Second Intifada.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
I feel like I'm missing something here. How exactly were the LGBT youth targeted? It sounds like what happened is some LGBT people from this anti-occupation organization joined and then disrupted the LGBT section of a generally pro-Israel march. If 1. the people who joined the march were LGBT themselves and 2. the part they "infiltrated" wasn't meant for a specific organization/group (but LGBT marchers in general), I'm not sure how much sense it makes to say they "infiltrated" the other LGBT people. If they weren't LGBT or infiltrated another established/organized LGBT group, I agree it's wrong, but otherwise I don't see an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I feel like I'm missing something here. How exactly were the LGBT youth targeted? It sounds like what happened is some LGBT people from this anti-occupation organization joined and then disrupted the LGBT section of a generally pro-Israel march. If 1. the people who joined the march were LGBT themselves and 2. the part they "infiltrated" wasn't meant for a specific organization/group (but LGBT marchers in general), I'm not sure how much sense it makes to say they "infiltrated" the other LGBT people. If they weren't LGBT or infiltrated another established/organized LGBT group, I agree it's wrong, but otherwise I don't see an issue. Just look at the brutal anti-LGBT abuse they unleashed: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Pretty sure KJI was responding to me as if I was talking about the alleged JVP disruption even though I was clearly talking about the pinkwashing protesters in Tel-Aviv, who were indeed part of the larger gay pride parade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Kadima wasn't a reaction to Gaza, Sharon formed it because pulling out of Gaza split Likud. It was formed in 2005, not 2002 - saying it was formed in response to political violence is preposterous. What the gently caress are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
2005 is when the second intifada ended you fuckwit, and Sharon drew a direct link between the violence (that he was probably chiefly responsible for starting) and the formation of a new unilateralist party. Oops, couldn't really have got it more wrong, could you?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:2005 is when the second intifada ended you fuckwit, and Sharon drew a direct link between the violence (that he was probably chiefly responsible for starting) and the formation of a new unilateralist party. Oops, couldn't really have got it more wrong, could you? Based on what? There are schools of thought that it "ended" late 2000/early 2001, or that 2002 was the peak, or that it never ended. There's no consensus. 2005 did not have the seemingly ubiquitous suicide bombings of the few years prior. What Sharon quotes are you referring to? And claiming he's responsible for the Intifada is wrong when Fatah members are on the record as deliberating seizing on his visit as a pretext. Ytlaya posted:I feel like I'm missing something here. How exactly were the LGBT youth targeted? It sounds like what happened is some LGBT people from this anti-occupation organization joined and then disrupted the LGBT section of a generally pro-Israel march. If 1. the people who joined the march were LGBT themselves and 2. the part they "infiltrated" wasn't meant for a specific organization/group (but LGBT marchers in general), I'm not sure how much sense it makes to say they "infiltrated" the other LGBT people. If they weren't LGBT or infiltrated another established/organized LGBT group, I agree it's wrong, but otherwise I don't see an issue. Read the link and related coverage about the incident. There's a group called Jewish Queer Youth that they infiltrated. Main Paineframe posted:Just look at the brutal anti-LGBT abuse they unleashed: These kids have been through hell and back, they're traumatized survivors. It's not a political organization, they were marching in a show of Jewish identity after years of being banned. JVP targeted the most vulnerable members of the community. emanresu tnuocca posted:Pretty sure KJI was responding to me as if I was talking about the alleged JVP disruption even though I was clearly talking about the pinkwashing protesters in Tel-Aviv, who were indeed part of the larger gay pride parade. I know you weren't - my comment is clearly a segway to a related point - it's two sides of the same coin. Anti-Zionists have a garbage record on LGBT rights, even so called progressives. To even cite a concept like pinkwashing is to be 100% dismissive of LGBT rights. They're human rights that are completely, unambiguously inalienable. Until they get better, the claim of pinkwashing is a lie, as disrespect for LGBT rights has the effect of profoundly discrediting their movement. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Based on what? There are schools of thought that it "ended" late 2000/early 2001, or that 2002 was the peak, or that it never ended. Those "schools of thought" are complete and utter nonsense, then. To say that the Second Intifada ended in 2000 suggests either insanity, a deep lack of connection to reality, or possibly a marooned time traveler from an alternate dimension. Kim Jong Il posted:These kids have been through hell and back, they're traumatized survivors. It's not a political organization, they were marching in a show of Jewish identity after years of being banned. JVP targeted the most vulnerable members of the community. It may not be a political organization, but they were participating in a political march! Gay Southerners have it pretty tough too, but they can't use that as a shield if they go join in on a pro-Confederate rally and then complain about nonviolent protesters who interrupt the march to chant things like "Black Lives Matter". Besides, the protesters in this case were also LGBT Jews - have you ever considered that they might be traumatized survivors too? No, because despite the fact that there are LGBT Jews on both sides of the debate, you're only seeing one side as individuals - to you, the other side is just an amorphous blob of identical beings known as "Anti-Zionists".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Those "schools of thought" are complete and utter nonsense, then. To say that the Second Intifada ended in 2000 suggests either insanity, a deep lack of connection to reality, or possibly a marooned time traveler from an alternate dimension. I lived in Israel at the time and I sure as hell don't think the Intifada ended in loving 2001. It was just warming up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 05:18
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Based on what? There are schools of thought that it "ended" late 2000/early 2001, or that 2002 was the peak, or that it never ended. There's no consensus. 2005 did not have the seemingly ubiquitous suicide bombings of the few years prior. What Sharon quotes are you referring to? And claiming he's responsible for the Intifada is wrong when Fatah members are on the record as deliberating seizing on his visit as a pretext. What the gently caress are you talking about you deluded moron? You're claiming that it ended when it started, namely, when Sharon made a visit to the temple mount with a view to intentionally torpedoing talks and causing violence - in September of 2000. You can argue about causation but the visit was intended as a provocation and it was taken as one; that it escalated is probably tribute to Arafat's lack of control of Palestinian militants who were more radical and wanted a fight. Either way, there are no 'schools of thought' here when it comes to date. It ended in 2005 by common consensus. Any attempt to claim otherwise is pure gaslighting bullshit, and an argument made in bad faith. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
To elaborate: there's a reason that 2005 is taken as a commonplace end date. Because it was the year in which the closest thing to formal peace talks to end the intifada occured, with both Abbas and Sharon agreeing to abandon violence at Sharm El Sheikh in 2005.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What the gently caress are you talking about you deluded moron? You're claiming that it ended when it started No, I never claimed it ended then, and the rest of your post is directly contradicted by Fatah quotes, and not sourced with anything to support the notionthat Sharon deliberately provoked. quote:Either way, there are no 'schools of thought' here when it comes to date. It ended in 2005 by common consensus. Do you even know what "gaslighting" or "bad faith" mean? My argument was that the Gaza disengagement was not directly provoked by violence. It was borne of good intentions and self interest in a relative lull. Arafat was gone, Sharon was tired of the occupation and looking to end it. You can look at a timeline of events, 2002 was by far the peak, I know because I was directly posting about it all here at the time. Main Paineframe posted:It may not be a political organization, but they were participating in a political march! Gay Southerners have it pretty tough too, but they can't use that as a shield if they go join in on a pro-Confederate rally and then complain about nonviolent protesters who interrupt the march to chant things like "Black Lives Matter". Besides, the protesters in this case were also LGBT Jews - have you ever considered that they might be traumatized survivors too? No, because despite the fact that there are LGBT Jews on both sides of the debate, you're only seeing one side as individuals - to you, the other side is just an amorphous blob of identical beings known as "Anti-Zionists". The alleged sexual orientation of the protesters is irrelevant. They, by their own account, deliberately targeted a vulnerable population. I don't think Zionists should traumatize abused LGBT victims at an anti-Zionist event, no, so you can't draw an analogy there. The equivalent of this ambush with the roles reversed is inconceivable. They violated a sacrosanct space and that makes them functional homophobes. The ability to suspend empathy for a group because their suffering intersects with a pet cause is pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
It's still reading like your mad that homosexuals called out other homosexuals for racism as if homosexuality gives racism a pass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:05
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:the rest of your post is directly contradicted by Fatah quotes, and not sourced with anything to support the notion that Sharon deliberately provoked. If I knowingly give you a pretext to do something I know you want to do, with a direct view to making you do that thing, am I totally lacking in responsibility for what happens? Does that not also involve examining why you might have formed your desire to perform that action in the first place? As for the notion that the act was deliberately provoked - that is, again, the commonplace reading of Sharon's behaviour by pretty much every credible party, even though it was denied, of course, by Sharon himself. The only historical debate is over to what extent you can call that 'just a pretext', not whether it was intended to be provocative. He claimed to be sending a message of peace and exercising his right as an Israeli to visit Al-Aqsa - if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Kim Jong Il posted:No, I never claimed it ended then Yes, you did. You claimed that Kadima and violence were unrelated phenomena - a totally insane and bizarre claim - and then situated the end of violence ridiculously in 2002, then went on to cite 'schools of thought' about it ending then that don't exist. The rest of your post is similarly deranged. Here's Sharon himself, to Bush: quote:Having reached the conclusion that, for the time being, there exists no Palestinian partner with whom to advance peacefully toward a settlement and since the current impasse is unhelpful to the achievement of our shared goals, I have decided to initiate a process of gradual disengagement with the hope of reducing friction between Israelis and Palestinians. Yes, violence is totally irrelevant. It's all about altruism, totally not about trying to torpedo the two-state solution and totally quarantine Gaza. Read events whichever way you like - the pullouts came because violence convinced Sharon negotiation was impossible, or because it gave Sharon a 'pretext' of his own to destroy the bilateral elements of the peace process, or because it created security necessities, or because the death of Arafat created a new hope that violence could be controlled. Don't nonsensically claim that this sudden and highly controversial step was taken because of Sharon's profound good will towards Palestinians in a 'lull'. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:My argument was that the Gaza disengagement was not directly provoked by violence. It was borne of good intentions and self interest in a relative lull. Arafat was gone, Sharon was tired of the occupation and looking to end it. "The disengagement was proposed in 2003 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, adopted by the Government in June 2004, approved by the Knesset in February 2005 and enacted in August 2005. ... Sharon suggested his disengagement plan for the first time on December 18, 2003 at the Fourth Herzliya Conference." How does this work with the violence timeline? Well, That same month only had a couple of Palestinians caught on the way to murdering some schoolchildren before the speech, and a suicide bomber killing 4 people afterwards. So, you know, pretty mellow overall. PS: Arafat only died in November 2004. Idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Double posting for entirely different content: disturbing details about incidences of ridiculous treatment of Yemenite children by doctors in the early years of Israel. quote:An American fund connected to the US National Institutes of Health paid for studies of Yemenite children who died due to rampant medical negligence in the 1950s, protocols of interviews with doctors then involved revealed to the Knesset on Wednesday. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Double posting for entirely different content: disturbing details about incidences of ridiculous treatment of Yemenite children by doctors in the early years of Israel. Lmao, the nation founded from people who suffered under Dr. Mengele did this? The irony is truly palpable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The alleged sexual orientation of the protesters is irrelevant. They, by their own account, deliberately targeted a vulnerable population. I don't think Zionists should traumatize abused LGBT victims at an anti-Zionist event, no, so you can't draw an analogy there. The equivalent of this ambush with the roles reversed is inconceivable. They violated a sacrosanct space and that makes them functional homophobes. The ability to suspend empathy for a group because their suffering intersects with a pet cause is pathetic. Since when is a public political march a "sacrosanct space"? Also, since when is counter-protesting equivalent to "traumatizing"? You sound like you're angrier about the heartless monsters who cruelly held up pro-Palestine signs near them than you are about the good Zionists who actually abused them. The biggest problem with your logic, of course, is that it very easily carries over to other political ideologies. Is it homophobic to protest a gay white supremacist group's Confederate Day parade, because they all had such a hard time growing up down South and therefore should be insulated and protected from any political dissent against their goddamn hate march? It's rather amusing that you brought all this up in response to pinkwashing, though. Because I have to admit, I can't think of many things that are more pinkwashy than straight Zionist mouthpieces insisting that it was homophobic for gay anti-Zionists to protest a pro-Israel parade because some of the marchers were LGBT youth who had faced discrimination and abuse at the hands of the Jewish communities they grew up in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Double posting for entirely different content: disturbing details about incidences of ridiculous treatment of Yemenite children by doctors in the early years of Israel. That article doesn't try to establish any of its sensationalist claims. The "murders" in the headlines transform into "negligence" within the second paragraph and the actual testimony of Dr Mendel only purports that organs were harvested without the family's consent, which is horrifying but it doesn't support any of the sensationalist claims that are made by MK Ohana or by the article's headlines. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:"The disengagement was proposed in 2003 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, adopted by the Government in June 2004, approved by the Knesset in February 2005 and enacted in August 2005. This completely supports my claim. It was not viable until violence fell. As Arafat was a prime instigator, his removal was a great assist to the idea that Israel could disengage from Gaza. If you actually look at a timeline of attacks, the truth is that Israel was invading West Bank cities in 2002, and those days were long gone by the time this became feasible. All violence has accomplished for Gaza and Hamas is a mountain of human suffering. They are materially, unequivocally worse off. Main Paineframe posted:Since when is a public political march a "sacrosanct space"? Also, since when is counter-protesting equivalent to "traumatizing"? Because this section of the parade specifically was meant to be a safe space for abused LGBT youth. As if there's any other context where anyone would ever think it was ok to target a vulnerable group like that. Political marches aren't sacrosanct spaces, safe spaces for vulnerable groups explicitly set up to be safe are. quote:You sound like you're angrier about the heartless monsters who cruelly held up pro-Palestine signs near them than you are about the good Zionists who actually abused them. Except that Jewish Zionists are overwhelmingly pro-LGBT. (Obviously you cannot say the same about Christian Zionists.) These were LGBT teens being abused by Haredi, anti-Zionist communities. I'm quite okay with delegitimizing anti-Zionist, (and separately) racist Haredim. You're the one who (correctly) complains all the time about Israel's marriage laws, it's not Netanyahu writing those, it's a bunch of Satmar puppets. quote:The biggest problem with your logic, of course, is that it very easily carries over to other political ideologies. Is it homophobic to protest a gay white supremacist group's Confederate Day parade, because they all had such a hard time growing up down South and therefore should be insulated and protected from any political dissent against their goddamn hate march? White supremacists are not pro-LGBT, and the Jewish Queer Youth presence wasn't even about Zionism, Zionism is a flimsy excuse to hold a pan-Jewish unity parade. Like a Columbus Day parade or something of the sort, that's about Italian pride, not literal pride in Columbus in most cases. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
I agree that Israel forces a diabolical choice on Palestinians. 1) Don't violently resist, and we'll take all of your land, destroy any prospect for a future Palestinian state for you to live in, and so totally submerge you in settlements and our security aparatus that you will never be able to fight again; or, 2) Violently resist, and live under a permanent siege. You can't take from this that Israel rewards non-violence, only that it tries to punish violence differently and more harshly; but if your end-goal is a political solution to Israel Palestine, it's clear that what's happened on the West Bank is not a model for how to proceed, but rather a model for how to surrender forever. Their choice, but that's the reality of the situation. It is the policy of the IDF and Israeli government to intentionally undermine and prevent any possible state formation on the west bank forever by totally undermining territorial integrity, and that has been the tax levied by Israel against the relatively peaceable behaviour of Palestinians there. Whoopie. Additionally, LGBT Israelis are entitled to call in to question the extremely dubious morality of using gay rights in Israel as a stick with which to beat Muslims. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I agree that Israel forces a diabolical choice on Palestinians. Don't polls consistently show that a majority of Israeli's support a two state solution? The devil has always been in the details, East Jerusalem, Right of Return and so on. Disinterested posted:Additionally, LGBT Israelis are entitled to call in to question the extremely dubious morality of using gay rights in Israel as a stick with which to beat Muslims. LGBT people are generally treated abhorrently in Islamic majority countries, I don't really care where the stick comes from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 04:27
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Don't polls consistently show that a majority of Israeli's support a two state solution? The devil has always been in the details, East Jerusalem, Right of Return and so on. Supporting a two state solution which in detail is not a two state solution at all gets me in to some very strange psychological and semantic territory, though what people in a very vague way support and what that has to do with what the concrete policy actually is, you tell me. BattleMoose posted:LGBT people are generally treated abhorrently in Islamic majority countries, I don't really care where the stick comes from. You should when it's used as an argument that Palestinians have it good and that therefore Israel is above reproach in its handling of Palestinians. The same is true mutatis mutandis for 'only democracy in the middle east' and so on. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Supporting a two state solution which in detail is not a two state solution at all gets me in to some very strange psychological and semantic territory, though what people in a very vague way support and what that has to do with what the concrete policy actually is, you tell me. I always took it in good faith that when people say, "they support a two state solution" that they do in fact mean a real two state solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 04:57
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I always took it in good faith that when people say, "they support a two state solution" that they do in fact mean a real two state solution. Given this apparently well-established conviction how do you explain the course of Israeli policy and electoral outcomes? In any event, what I say in a poll and how I really behave are not necessarily that well correlated, and I might believe in a version of the two state solution in which Palestine has 0 territorial integrity, no capability for self-defence, a proviso that Israeli forces can enter it at any time to conduct security operations, have tight Israeli control over its natural resources and revenues. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Given this apparently well-established conviction how do you explain the course of Israeli policy and electoral outcomes? It certainly isn't unique in the sense that government policy doesn't follow the will of the majority population. There are sufficient shenanigans in democratic systems that allow for situations to occur. Gay marriage in Australia is a case in point, a large majority (64%) support it, and for many years too but it hasn't happened yet. And as I said before, the devil is in the details, specifically, East Jerusalem and Right of Return. Israel cannot *force* a two state solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 05:24
|
|
BattleMoose posted:It certainly isn't unique in the sense that government policy doesn't follow the will of the majority population. There are sufficient shenanigans in democratic systems that allow for situations to occur. Gay marriage in Australia is a case in point, a large majority (64%) support it, and for many years too but it hasn't happened yet. And as I said before, the devil is in the details, specifically, East Jerusalem and Right of Return. Israel cannot *force* a two state solution. What is the point of this statement? Israel is not only not forcing the two state solution, it's actively trying to torpedo it as hard as it can at every turn, and has been for some time. The idea that the state of Israel is up for peace and is waiting on Palestine is just imagined history. And if you acknowledge that policy doesn't track with (notionally established) preferences - though you never really deal with the question of how the details truly effect the 'two state solution' - what is your point here about it? Disinterested fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 05:56
|
|
quote:“Netanyahu is like a man who, while negotiating the division of a pizza, continues to eat it.”
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What is the point of this statement? Israel is not only not forcing the two state solution, it's actively trying to torpedo it as hard as it can at every turn, and has been for some time. I don't agree with this interpretation at all. I mostly poked my head out because of your post a few posts back positioning Israel as presenting two outcomes which you discussed. Neither of which includes a two state solution. I compared this with the polls that show the majority of Israelis do support a two state solution. Ultimately though, a much more likely interpretation is that the majority of them would like normalised relations with a peaceful Palestinian state. And the polls bear this out. quote:“Netanyahu is like a man who, while negotiating the division of a pizza, continues to eat it.” Perhaps, but we don't judge all Americans based on who Trump is. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 06:06
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I don't agree with this interpretation at all. Why not? BattleMoose posted:I mostly poked my head out because of your post a few posts back positioning Israel as presenting two outcomes which you discussed. Neither of which includes a two state solution. I compared this with the polls that show the majority of Israelis do support a two state solution. Ultimately though, a much more likely interpretation is that the majority of them would like normalised relations with a peaceful Palestinian state. And the polls bear this out. I can differentiate between Israel and Israelis - which you have not - but you haven't accounted for a number of problems, amongst which is how far can you press what you call the 'details' of a two state solution until it isn't a real two-state solution anymore. In any event, Likud has been the dominant party for some time, which indicates that if a two state solution is a priority it doesn't effect voting outcomes enough to shift the balance of power. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
"Netanyahu is like a man who, while negotiating the division of a pizza, continues to eat it.” - Avi Shlaim
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
What an amazing quote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 06:36
|
|
          Yeah I'm optimistic.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Perhaps, but we don't judge all Americans based on who Trump is. Well the American political system is completely hosed up by the electoral college, which allows moronic assholes like Dubya or Don Trumpeone to be elected despite losing the popular vote. On the other hand, Bibi is in his third consecutive term (fourth overall), having been prime minister since 2009. Also: 2008: Operation Cast Lead 2009: Bibi becomes PM of the 32nd govt of Israel 2012: Operation Pillar of Defense 2013: Bibi becomes PM of the 33rd govt of Israel 2014: Operation Protective Edge 2015: Bibi becomes PM of the 34th govt of Israel Correlation isn't causation, but it does look like whenever there's a renewal of the Israeli ethnic cleansing efforts, Bibi is triumphantly reelected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 09:09
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Well the American political system is completely hosed up by the electoral college, which allows moronic assholes like Dubya or Don Trumpeone to be elected despite losing the popular vote. Let's not forget him being PM in 1996 and making GBS threads all over the Oslo accords.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Well the American political system is completely hosed up by the electoral college, which allows moronic assholes like Dubya or Don Trumpeone to be elected despite losing the popular vote. You're drawing precisely the wrong conclusion. He first won election in 1996 after a wave of Hamas violence. Sharon won in 2001 after the Intifada started. Violence radicalizes populations. And yet Likud has continually barely hung on. They placed 2nd in 2009, but Kadima couldn't form a government. Herzog actually would have been the first choice of the swing parties in 2015, but Likud got the first crack at forming a government because they won the largely plurality. We should stop enabling right with ethno-nationalists who exploit violence to win at polls, and the primest example of that is Hamas, who are continually circle jerking with Likud to escalate violence and keep people scared and supporting ethnonationalism. Similarly, the results on polls about peace are all over the map on all sides, the only fair way to actually look at that question is some sort of normalized aggregation over time. Demographic changes also have to be taken into account here, as the rise of groups like the Mizrahim, Russians, and Orthodox has been a disaster for the left, and probably explains a good part of Labor's recent failures. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
If only all those darn Hamas, who are exactly as bad if not worse than Likud, could get all those Palestinians to play nice and roll over as buildings are leveled and their children are shot. It's like they never even tried nonviolent resistance fruitlessly for decades!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:40
|
|
