My Imaginary GF posted:

If their cause is truly about something more than earthly hatreds and desires, it will survive the test of time.

team overhead smash posted:

My suggestion, which I made in my last post too, it to attack legitimate military targets. Keep up the resistance without committing war crimes. Put military pressure on Israel while making it harder to be dismissed by the rest of the world (whose support you need to end the conflict) that you are bloodthirsty terrorists.

The Insect Court posted:

Jews? I'm talking about Israelis. Do you not understand the difference? Do you know not every Jewish person is also an Israeli? Please don't conflate the two needlessly. It can be a pretty ugly sentiment, although I'm not accusing you of having sinister motives in conflating Jews as a whole with Israelis, I'm just saying you should engage in a little self-reflection since your mind went there so quickly.

My Imaginary GF posted:

"Survive the Shoah, get your house taken over by the Soviets and lose everything? Quit colonizing, that land with safety isn't yours."

That's victim blaming. The post you cite lays out the political realities of the current situation, which you apparently see as victim blaming.

My Imaginary GF posted:

If their cause is truly about something more than earthly hatreds and desires, it will survive the test of time.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Ok, you run on that policy in America and see how well it goes. You call for purge all you want; the rest of us will work within the system to affect change through policy implementation. Your mistake is thinking the world is perfectly logical and rational and actors will work to optimize the return for their systems, rather than work within their systems to optimize their power.

Go ahead, run on your positions in America. See how far it takes you; see just how many folks agree with you. Hint: its even less than you think, you crazed nihilist. Israel works under the rules of America's political order; Palestinians do not. If they want American subsidies, they are free to convince Americans that they deserve them. Americans view Israel as a friendly nation which has earned American support. Not many Americans view Palestine as a nation, much less want subsidies to go to Palestinians.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I am sure you will all be relieved that the age-old tension between Jewish and Democratic is set to be resolved.

The short version is that Jewish won: if the law overwhelmingly approved by the Cabinet is also approved by the Knesset as a whole, Jewish jurisprudence will be officially cemented as a basis of Israeli law, and Arabic will be officially delisted as the country's second language. This will be a Basic Law, so Supreme Court decisions in future will have to consider it at the same level as the Human Dignity and Freedom Law, etc. (Basic Laws are the creation of a Constitution piecemeal, one law at a time)

My Imaginary GF posted:

Although I disagree with your imprecise use of terms, something like that. You don't enforce policies which make it easiest for the far right to win: you facilitate the victory of the left with your actions. Sometimes, that means its necessary to appease the moderates. Others, you have to give in to the conservatives. On very rare and special occasions, you live with the far right.

Clearly, Palestinian actions are not very rare, howevery, they are very 'special' occasions.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Yes, "perception of peace" is a necessity for populations to begin to elect non-far right folks. It takes time to achieve, and you need predictability with your actions.

Palestinian 'resistance' is too unpredictable in its implementation, and thus fails at its stated and unstated objectives. The coherent strategy that is successful is to accept you've lost the round, fold, and wait for the cards to be re-shuffled before joining the next round.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Because Israel has a genuine interest in a two-state solution and respects Palestinian sovreignty. If Israel were to ever appoint an official Governor-General recognized as such, then we would know that the Israelis truly had non-security related intention.

nopantsjack posted:

Do you know who in this thread is a bigger moron than MIGF?

All you loving idiots still replying to him 22 pages later.

My Imaginary GF posted:

You realize "expel all lobbies associated with foreign countries" is related to historical policies of, "expel all the Jews," don't you?

Jack of Hearts posted:

Not in America. In America it's associated with expelling the French, which is a wholly American and worthwhile endeavor.

syscall girl posted:

I thought the French provided logistical support in the American Revolution?

Benjamin Franklin hosed a lot of French women to make this possible.

Blame France for contributing heavily to our failed experiment but not for failing to contribute.

My Imaginary GF posted:

We're in the I/P thread, discussing American-Israeli policy, and you say 'I never said anything specific'? Boy, if I was less generous of a man, would I say thats the most dogwhistle of all dogwhistles.

Foreign influence always happens. You create a system which channels that foreign influence into domestic profit and capital accumulation at a higher rate than is being spent by the foreign lobby. Simply, you co-opt foreign influence into your domestic policy agenda and use it to make some money. That's really the best you can hope for, given the alternarive policy options will eventually result in "expel all Jews." That fact is why Israel maintains its right of return.

My Imaginary GF posted:

If they wanted America to force Israel to stop, there are ways to do so.

Continued attacks on Israel raise that price.

My Imaginary GF posted:

AIPAC is a domestic lobby in America on a foreign policy issue. To label such lobbies as 'foreigners who need to be expelled' is a case of anti-semitism, even though you've much too freely accused individuals of anti-semitism in your previous posts.

My Imaginary GF posted:

I wouldn't be opposed to enshrining support for Israel in the Constitution. There has been some talk about this in the more radical quarters of the intellectuals.

My Imaginary GF posted:

I favor Democrats winning elections. The definition of foreign is, in my view, an elastic and nuanced concept: there are Democratic voters and donors, and there are individuals who haven't yet realized they're Democratic voters and donors. Palestinians have made clear they are neither; until they begin to realize democratic principals and self-organize within appropriate structures for that end, there is little to discuss with them.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Like I've mentioned, true leadership is the ability to ignore your base in order to pursue policy in the state's best interest.

My Imaginary GF posted:

computer parts posted:

It was described once as "Democratic policy analyst".

My Imaginary GF posted:

Disagreeing with your view and lobbying your fellow citizens on that view is not treason. I don't see how using that language is productive; by your logic, Obama should be impeached over his weakness on Mideast policy.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Oh hey, it's that time in the thread where people demonstrate that they don't understand US campaign finance law. AIPAC is, on paper, funded by American donors and run by American citizens. While their activities are certainly eyebrow-raising, the last prosecution against AIPAC employees was dropped over questions about the applicability of the Espionage Act.

Dead Reckoning posted:

If folks were actually concerned about corruption in US elections, they'd be posting about it in the US Politics or campaign finance reform threads, not the Israel/Palestine thread. I'm amused that some posters can't point Israel doing something without taking a whole bunch of words to explain that Israel is doing it the Very Worst it's ever been done.

Eregos posted:

Perhaps the thread can explain this to me. A common charge I hear from anti-Israel activists is that Israel deliberately targets Gaza civilians with airstrikes and shelling as part of some larger strategy to do... what exactly? I don't see any strategic sense behind it from a Machiavellian standpoint, it never really weakens support for Hamas as far as I know and it increases international sympathy for Gaza. The (also Machiavellian) idea that Israel is simply committed to degrading Hamas' capacity, regardless of the civilian cost, seems much more plausible to me.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Welcome to the operational theory for understanding US-Israeli relations. Israel can't commit atrocities towards Palestine, as Israel is a firm ally of America, serving as the foremost bulwark against arab populism.

zeal posted:

Are you even pretending to advocate imperial realpolitik anymore? When a border tribe assaults your representatives you don't extract tribute from the next tribe over, you enact retribution on the source of aggression. Send a company of marines to corral and execute a fifth of Adei Ad's military-aged males and perhaps they'll think twice about throwing stones the next time agents of their ruling hegemon pass by the village. If the recalcitrant client state that backs the tribe makes a fuss, simply take hostages from among whatever members of the ruling class's extended families happen to be within easy reach. Make an example of a few dynasts' sons and daughters and they may learn the value of both loyalty and submission, and discipline their auxiliary tribes accordingly.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Let me stop you at your first sentance: War is the lack of morality. Do not apply moral standards to warfare, for doing so only emboldens terrorists.

If a state organization engages in an action, it is to be judged under a different legal standard than action engaged in by non-state actors. Systems for conflict between states are held to a separate legal standard than systems for conflicts between non-state organizations and state actors. If a state actor does it to a non-state organization, what is lawful for the state actor may be entirely unlawful for the non-state organization and a warcrime that can only be prosecuted with immediate authorization for use of force.

You criticize state actors using the same logical framework through which you criticize non-state actors. This cannot be done, and only emboldens terrorism. While general principals may be applied to state on state conflict, context must be considered for state on non-state action.

Hezbollah engaged in warcrimes at Qara and provoked shelling of non-combatants by Israel. Israel has committed no crime by shelling unlawful combatants and inducing collatoral damage, wheread Hezbollah has committed acts which should rightfully be tried before, and enforced by, an impartial ICC tribunal.

Human shields exist for actions of non-state organizations. Human shields do not exist for actions of state actors. Deal with it.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Its logic like yours which emboldens terrorists to cause unnecessary colateral damage. Give it up already if you wish for a just and verdant I/P peace process.

My Imaginary GF posted:

You have individuals calling for bombing Israel because ~inexplicable reasons~ but is not because Jews! They swear!, and you have me, advocating for policy that is productive towards an acceptable peace process.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Issue: Arabs are not a state actor, and cannot defeat Israel through strength of arms. Any attempt at doing so will result in lawful execution of unlawful combatants.

My Imaginary GF posted:

And here we have on display the true underpinning of I/P issues: individuals who sympathize with terrorists and embolden the continuation of terrorism.

Give it up, Panzeh. Quit advocating for Palestinian death.


Where do you live, Panzeh? You claim to be American. Have you returned all your property to its true owners and engaged in a campaign to incite hostility against American communities?

My Imaginary GF posted:

I believe intra-cranial hernias are reserved for unlawful combatants undergoing enhanced detention. Of all things, I am not an unlawful combatant in the I/P thread, nor do I provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, unlike some posters in this thread.

Jack of Hearts posted:

Whoa, slow down there. Look, MIGF is either a very good troll, or just some guy off his meds.

Volkerball posted:

Yes but some men are great generals, and some men are five dollar foot long making idiots who see a cool word on a blog somewhere and start using it like they know what it means to try and sound smart.

New Division posted:

I always thought that MIGF's shtick was not that far off how a lot of Beltway defense/foreign policy "experts" view the world. It even has something close to the right mixture of poorly thrown together buzzwords and soundbites.

My Imaginary GF posted:

How the gently caress would that advance American interests? Again, individuals in this thread come up with "kill Jews" as a solution to terrorism in the Mid-East.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Will it? It'd look like the Lebanese Civil War, except with greater volumes of American direct aid and distracted Arab nations unable to provide foreign training and bases due to economic impacts of low oil.

This is what Abbas lays the framework for when he supports a bid to join ICC. This is why Palestine cannot be accepted to ICC and must withdraw its application post haste.

litany of gulps posted:

The same debates happen in other forums as well, and there are a huge number of SA readers that don't actively participate in posting.

Letting insane ideas go unchallenged is pretty much the best way to grant them legitimacy, as the insane person certainly isn't going to stop spouting them, and eventually they'll start reaching people in a way that is impossible if they are being shut down consistently and repeatedly by non-insane people. Engaging with the insane is a good way to draw out the truly unreasonable aspects of their ideologies, which are often hidden in more palatable arguments if they aren't explicitly challenged.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The problem with an insurgency that doesn't commit war crimes is that would mean things like not using human shields, separating themselves from the civilian populace, wearing a fixed sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, not misusing hospitals, schools or mosques, and limiting attacks to recognized military targets. It would be immediately stomped by the IDF.