fade5 posted:

(Sidenote: The anti-Israel=anti-Semitic thing is also bad because it cheapens real anti-semitism. As an example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center ranked cartoonist Carlos Latuff higher on an anti-semitism list than the Hungarian Jobbik party. Jobbik are basically literal loving neo-nazis.)

FreshlyShaven posted:

Israelis have a much higher tolerance for bloodshed than the Brits did. During the First Intifada, when Palestinian society rose up in an act of concentrated civil disobedience, Israel reacted by expelling foreign observers and humanitarian-aid workers, rounding up tens of thousands of activists and electrifying their genitals and plucking out their toenails for crimes such as handing out flyers or attending illegal protests(all protests are illegal for Palestinians in the OT because they are granted no human rights) or merely being named as a subversive by the last torture victim and putting down protests with live ammunition. The government's actions were supported by the Israeli public by wide margins.

CommieGIR posted:

Probably more because the IDF views 'shelters' as 'possible rocket launch sites'

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

Imagine how much more prosperous the entire region would be if this situation was resolved tomorrow:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-real-cost-of-israel-s-occupation-of-the-palestinians-1.395839

Panzeh posted:

AIPAC, J-Street, and others are basically foreign spy agencies that bribe US politicians to serve another nation's interests. They would not be tolerated by any realist state.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Sadat made peace, and died for it. Who in the Palestinian leadership is willing to die a traitor for the cause of peace?

Dolash posted:

Yeah, dropping the facade suggests they no longer feel the need for cover or else simply don't care anymore. It certainly indicates the direction things are moving.

team overhead smash posted:

Public opinion plays a pretty key role in this conflict so anything that influences that is relevant, so it could end up being an influence on a positive end.

I would not call the event in and of itself good though, even when talking about the long-run as comes across as very off-putting. It's a bad thing which might happen to help in the long-run. It's just something that really niggles at me because I've come across similar viewpoints in other situations - socialists who cheer when the economy goes down the shitter and load of people loose there jobs because they think it will push us further towards a crisis of Capitalism or Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, who in private approved of anti-semitism because it pushed Jews further towards Zionist viewpoints.

My Imaginary GF posted:

I wouldn't be opposed to enshrining support for Israel in the Constitution.

My Imaginary GF posted:

George Washington is dead. Dead men do not spin graves; that takes parts and labor and has numerous costs associated with it. Far cheaper to monumentalize than it is to continuously spin a grave.

Xander77 posted:

Shooting and Crying

Volkerball posted:

Also that he thinks there is no solution for Gaza, so rather than chase after a 10 and wind up with a 0, he wants to settle for an achievable "7." That 7 is letting food (literally the only thing he offered. Fruits, vegetables, etc) into Gaza, but nothing that will help Gaza security-wise.

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.

SedanChair posted:

W-what is this

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Yeah, if I wanted to say "for example" I would have written "e.g.", or "see". Is "excl." less ambiguous?

Main Paineframe posted:

There's no way there's going to be an unfriendly US administration anytime in the next six years. For one thing, the 2016 election season is starting pretty soon, so Obama is going to have to dial it back in order to keep the big Democratic donors happy. For another, "refusing to unconditionally veto any and all UN proposals which condemn Israel's actions in any way" is not the same as "unfriendly" and Israel will do just fine with even a neutral America, at least in the near future.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Seriously, you do realize that Hamas's rise owes at least some of its success to exactly this kind of thinking re: Fatah, right? This is a terrible idea.

Main Paineframe posted:

See the second half of what you quoted. Us being less friendly with Israel is not the same as being unfriendly with them. Israel can survive just fine without the US subsidizing their military, and there's no way we're going to put economic sanctions on them. Besides, if Obama is any indication, the big thing annoying US leadership about Israel isn't their tendency to wage indiscriminate warfare against armed Muslim groups, but rather settlement expansion.

emanresu tnuocca posted:

Irrelevant really, this was surely done at the behest of Liberman himself.

No opinions on the kindergarten video? I was sure you'd enjoy it.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Regardless of what happens, the Israeli government becoming political football is a nail in the coffin of unquestioning, bipartisan American support.

Bibi done hosed up.

Main Paineframe posted:

Nope. Keep in mind I don't speak conversational Hebrew, but from what I can tell, it's a pair of parents waiting for the babysitter and then Netanyahu shows up saying he's there to answer the job ad for a "bibi-sitter" while the parents stare in shock and salute and stuff that such a mighty figure showed up to their home and they try to clear up the misunderstanding, but then he talks a bit about how awesome he is and how he is well-suited to take care of and protect their children, unlike his opponents (I'm pretty sure he calls out Tzipi specifically here), and then the parents leave, having been convinced that he is truly the most trustworthy and dependable person to watch the house while they're out. Later that night, they return to see Netanyahu vegging out on the couch, shoving snacks into his mouth and laughing uproariously as he watches a video of one of his own speeches on the TV. At no point in the commercial is a child seen or heard.

It's...not a very good political ad.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

But these are all honorable men.

DarkCrawler posted:

You can convert, but Israel has in past banned single criminal/suspicious born Jews as well as groups not considered Jewish enough from entering the country. I don't think they would react any better if 11+million Palestinians said they would want to convert to Judaism and demand equal eights and voting power. Besides, the Law of Return is pretty clear about who gains automatic citizenship, and converts do not meet said requirements.

Xander77 posted:

TEAYCHES posted:

I do not believe anyone here would seriously defend state implementation of the Jizya as just government.

hakimashou posted:

You could find a lot of examples of equally awful things said by Americans. I know it lacks the emotional impact, but "nuke Afghanistan" and indeed "shoulda nuked Russia!" express more homicidal ideas.

Ultramega posted:

It's like hakimashou lives in this fantasy world where literally the only factors deciding whether a sovereign nation should invade and occupy a neighboring country are their relative military strengths. So, in order to stay logically consistent let's say israel is invaded and occupied by jordan or lebanon you'd have this guy claiming there's nothing they could/should do about it if they weren't able to repulse them militarily and they should just rejoin the diaspora. Sorry to put words in your mouth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah reading the responses tends to be pretty informative, especially since MIGF's posts are the actual American Zionist-supporter talking points but stripped of all obfuscation and laid bare in full gruesome honesty.

Juffo-Wup posted:

Is there anything anyone could say that your narrative would not be able to somehow accommodate?

The Insect Court posted:

Number of fatalities from the "Lavon affair": 0

Number of injured from the "Lavon affair": 1 (one conspirator had a bomb go off in his pocket)

Number of fatalities from the 1948 Cairo bombings: 70

Number of injured from the 1948 Cairo bombings: 200


Fine, fair enough. Let's take your proposition that it would be prejudicial to suggest the moral value of the victims and the guilt attached to the perpetrators aren't equal for both cases.

Please explain to us why we should view some minor property damage to a couple government buildings as the moral equivalent of the murder of 70 Egyptian Jews.

emanresu tnuocca posted:

In some clash between settlers and the Palestinian villagers they've come to harass yesterday some Israeli policewoman apparently got a little too close to the action and got a bit scared, two palestinian villagers offered to shield her with their bodies.