|
McDowell posted:Yeah, that is the most hosed part of it all. Yeah, the message from this election is pretty clear - violence against Israel is utterly hopeless and self-destructive for the Palestinians. What happened last summer can happen again, but worse this time, since Bibi is stronger now. A commitment to non-violence is the only chance Palestinians have for a good outcome.
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Ultramega posted:It was sky high before that. Yeah, and then he and the right in Israel won a mandate in the election. A mandate for 'strong' leadership.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:I thought of another point worth making, which is that support for Israel has thrived in a climate where most Americans really have no idea what's going on over there. Even among my more politically active and/or Jewish friends with ties to the region, there is a general sense that the peace process isn't working and "both sides" are to blame, but absolutely no knowledge of the historical context, the factions at play, or their respective policies. This sort of ignorance is the perfect breeding ground for propaganda, misinformation, and sweeping generalizations to fester in. Increased discussion of the situation in Israel, even discussion that leans toward the right wing, has the potential to increase people's understanding and awareness of the issue. If you believe as I do that the realities of the situation do not favor Israeli policy, than this increased level of awareness can only be a good thing. The trick will be ensuring that we have a real dialog about US Israel policy rather than the bad faith dog and pony shows we've had in the past. I think that this won't matter unless HAMAS and the Palestinians disarm and commit to non-violence. I don't see any outcome at all where Americans side with the people celebrating martyrdom, waving flags with Arabic writing and shooting AK-47s in the air while veiled women look on and cheer. It may or may not be fair, but Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS et al. have spoiled it for Palestinian militarism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:If anything in this world is going to get Americans to understand radical Islamic perspectives, it's going to be Israel blowing up schools, hospitals, and huge numbers of women and children on camera. Americans by and large don't have any interest at all in understanding radical Islamic perspectives. After 9/11 and everything since, I think the idea is that people who do those things don't get to have perspectives. If anything, I think their conduct pushes people to support whatever they oppose, on the notion that if these people hate it, it's probably a good thing somehow. There was a West Wing episode where the ambassador of the fictional middle eastern state sponsor of terror hinted to the chief of staff that with an election looming, the president should be careful not to antagonize his country since it could provoke a conflict that Americans would blame on the president. The chief of staff laughed in his face and told him that all the president would have to do, to sew the election up then and there and be guaranteed reelection, was to take the country's sultan to the middle of Times Square and shoot him in the head, then buy a hot dog, on national TV. There is a lot stacked against the American people ever siding against Israel and with the Palestinians. First and foremost, there is the problems America has had with radical islamist terrorism. There's also just plain old racism. There's also a large segment of the American population that believes there is religious significance to the Jews and Israel. There's also our long friendship with Israel, and the fact that it is a liberal democracy and quite western and civilized. There are the 'hot IDF chicks.' There are also a lot of Jewish people in the US. The US doesn't have Europe's traditions of anti-semitism, or its kind of leftism. If the Palestinians launched a major terrorist attack against Israel, and Israel indiscriminately bombed Gaza, I think a great many Americans would just shrug and say "that's what we should have done after 9/11,' and a lot of Americans would just cheer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
I don't think it's that Europeans like the Palestinians, I think it's that they don't like Israel because of who Israelis are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's kind of small potatoes compared to what's going on in Gaza right now. What's going on in Gaza right now, you ask? Nothing. Absolutely nothing - no reconstruction, no homes, no money, no electricity, no clean water, no hospitals, and barely any international aid. The number of people killed in Protective Edge is tiny compared to the number forced into misery by the devastation brought to bear against Gazan infrastructure. Not only that, but neither Hamas nor the PA has any money to spend on rebuilding, and aid organizations' funds have largely dried up since the international community's pledges of billions of dollars worth of aid appear to have been nothing more than empty promises that they failed to deliver on. Aid organizations are now estimating that, at the current rate, it will take over 100 years to rebuild Gaza to the state it was in a year ago. So, in retrospect, do you think digging the tunnels and shooting the rockets was worth it? Hamas may not have money and materials now, but they had it before. And they chose to make rockets and tunnels. I don't believe there is any outcome to palestinian violence except the one in Gaza. Militarily, it is an utterly hopeless, self destructive criminal lost cause for them that they can't ever possibly win, and won't. Their only hope is to commit to non violence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:What exactly do you think the next step is? Are all the pathetic people in Gaza suddenly going to think, hmm, maybe I shouldn't try and kill the Israelis that have ruined my life and slaughtered my family? Obviously they're going to fight in any way possible. What is "not winning" for them that hasn't already been visited upon them, and how does Israel take this to the next step without destroying themselves at the same time, either via endless war or crushing international condemnation (if they ever step things up into the sort of extremes that would actually be required to finish this via oppression)? They have to choose between trying futilely to get revenge, and building a future for their children. They are defeated, the arabs lost their wars with Israel, if they don't learn to accept their situation and build and improve from there, they will only ever get what they have now. As long as Israeli bombing of Gaza is in response to terrorist violence like the rocket attacks or the tunnel attacks, the US will not countenance anything except full support for Israel. 9/11 and a lot that followed really permanently changed the outlook for palestinians I think, and made non-violence vitally and centrally important to any good future for them. Gaza needs to learn from the lessons of Gandhi and Dr King if it wants to ever make any progress. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Yes, because people in the West Bank who aren't "violent" live the good life and aren't having their land and water taken away from them and getting harassed 24/7. A much better life than the people in Gaza though wouldn't you agree?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:If only they didn't fire rockets, they'd have a state or legal equality. Just like they had when rocket fire ceased almost entirely for two years and things got a lot better for Gaza. If they didnt dig tunnels or fire rockets, they may not have a state or legal equality, but they would instead have a city that wasn't bombed last summer, and also on top of that, the constructive use of all the materials, time, energy and money utterly wasted on the rockets and tunnels. I am struggling to figure out in what way choosing to use all that to make tunnels and rockets improved their lives and their situation vs using it to build useful things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Would you rather die on your feet, or live on your knees? Does the West Bank have a great prevalence of injured people than Gaza? I would have thought all the bombing and fighting in Gaza would have lead to more people getting hurt. And forgive me for being old fashioned, but in what way is being killed because terrorists put rockets near your house "dying on your feet?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You don't understand how an organization that is constantly under threat of attack, whether or not it does its part to keep the quiet, might want to built up militarily to have at least a little bit of leverage? How soon do you think Protective Edge would have ended if Hamas did not have the capacity to kill all those soldiers when the ground invasion commenced? Not to mention the use of tunnels in smuggling, an absolute necessity with Israel's arbitrary blocking/indefinite delays in allowing products in or out. Israel could make things very easy, it is the one with the actual power to make a difference. It chose not to, and that is the consequence. Palestinians may have a right to defend themselves, but it's very hard to argue that Israel has any duty to tolerate threats to its people from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups with their long histories of terrorist violence. Assuming that palestinians have a right to defend themselves, in what way were the rocket and tunnel attacks any kind of defense? What were they defending against and was the defense effective? In all honesty, the palestinians can never have even the slightest bit of military 'leverage' on israel, in any circumstance ever. They are hopelessly outmatched by the Israeli military. They will never ever be able to seriously contest it, and accepting that fact is vital for them, since it suggests the path that they ought to be taking anyway - a commitment to non-violence like Mahatma Gandhi's or Dr King's.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Instead they'd have a city that was bombed a couple of years before and never really rebuilt? When your city is destroyed every couple of years, pretending like the last destruction was the one that really counted is a joke. Why build hospitals and schools when those are target number one for your enemies each time there's an election (war)? What possible reason do they have for not building rockets and tunnels? Do the Israelis just wake up one morning and, apropos of nothing, decide to bomb Gaza city again? Is it never in response to attacks from Gaza? Isn't it possible that if Hamas and other groups disarmed completely, and stopped attacking Israel, that Israel might stop bombing Gaza? How often does Israel bomb the West Bank? Since the rocket attacks ended last summer, how often was Gaza City bombed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:But the 2014 invasion of Gaza had nothing to do with tunnels, rockets, or any resident of Gaza. As I recall, the reason for the war was the kidnapping of three settlers in the West Bank by a radical faction which, since Gaza is blockaded, must necessarily have originated from the West Bank. The lengths to which the IDF went to save palestinian lives in the last Gaza conflict was staggering. You get the impression that Israel cares more about the average Gazan than Hamas does, at least about keeping him from harm if he's a non-combatant. I didn't used to think much of Israel, until I saw how they were operating in Gaza, and the stark contrast between them and Hamas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Why is it that Israel does not deserve to have whole cities leveled when it kills dozens of Palestinians, or whenever militias raid and kill Palestinians or steal their land? Why is it that you accept that only Palestinians, who have much less coherent governmental structures or ability to oversee them, much less so since Israel keeps bombing and killing anything to do with those structures, are more collectively liable for the actions of any single Palestinian than Israel is? What you are expecting is for there not to be a single Palestinian wishing violent harm on Israelis ever as a prerequisite for any future hope of peace. Does that make any sense to you? Do you apply that standard to Israel? It's not really a question of 'deserve.' Israel has both a right to exist and a right to defend itself. What makes it different from the palestinians is that it has the capability to defend itself effectively. Israel has a duty to its people to stop attacks originating in Palestine. I'm not expecting anything like that at all. There is a difference between what someone thinks and what someone does. Palestinians can hate israelis all they want, as long as they remain non-violent. There are lots of people all over the world who hate one another but dont kill and attack one another. I imagine many in India hated the british, and many african-americans truly hated their white oppressors in the south, but because they committed to non-violence, they were able to get past their hatred and achieve progress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I've been watching this poo poo happen for years now. So has everyone else. Get loving real, you clownfart. Since those rocket attacks ended, how often has Gaza City been bombed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:2000 dead. Destruction that will take a hundred years to rebuild. Where did you see this "compassion"? What are your news sources? In mine Israelis were sitting near the border cheering on bombings, and whole families were deliberately killed for being related to the wrong people. I think you've got your answer right there already. 2000 dead, most of them military aged males. It's grim, but its true. Sometimes its hard to remember that things could be much worse. An entire month of airstrikes and fighting in a densely populated area and only 2000 people killed. The opposite of indiscriminate killing. The IDF's program of warning shots, text messages, leaflets etc saved many palestinian lives at the cost of IDF military effectiveness. They could have stopped the rocket attacks much more quickly if they didn't care about killing non-combatants. Gaza could be rebuilt much more quickly if Hamas and other militant groups disarmed and committed to nonviolence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:No, actually, because there were violent groups in both cases where the non-violent groups ended up being the lesser of two evils, they worked with them. And again, you are expecting Palestinians to collectively be able to stop any single act of violence, and yet you expect none of that from the Israelis, who subject the Palestinians to daily acts of violence, both in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as disenfranchisement. Palestinians must make sure that not a single Palestinian do something violent, or they all must suffer, according to your standards. Where does Israel stand there? I am seriously not trolling. It is a fact that the West Bank has better outcomes than Gaza. It is a fact that violence isn't just failing the palestinians, it is a catastrophe for them of enormous proportions. Violent opposition to israel *is* hopeless. There really is *no* good outcome from it. Hamas will *never* be able to force Israel to submit to its wishes. But israel *can* force whatever it wants on the palestinians because it is a thousand times stronger. Attacking an enemy a thousand times stronger is futile, its suicide. It's a game the palestinians will never be able to win. They cannot compete with israel militarily, they can't even begin to compete. So, they need to use a different strategy and take a different tack. People at rallies in Europe might sympathize with the ski mask wearing, Allahu Ackbar chanting, ak47-shooting, suicide bomber dress-up 'freedom fighters,' but in the real world, after 9/11 and all the other problems with islamist terrorism, this is a deal breaker for the people who have the power and make the decisions. Violence against a non-violent movement is wrong, it has been shown again and again to incur the condemnation of all the decent people of the world. The palestinians need to learn the lessons of Mahatma Gandhi in India and Dr. King in the United States.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I doubt the Israelis could get another American bailout right now if they launched another Gaza War, so obviously they aren't. Which ties back to my original point, that we need to stop funding Israeli wars with American dollars, to leash the mad dog and prevent their insanity. If they don't have munitions, how can they massacre civilians? They can't even carry out the simplest military operation without instantly requiring emergency American assistance. Why wouldn't Israel be able to get another bailout? Finish the thought. Israel wouldn't be able to get another bailout if it launched another Gaza war... because Gaza stopped firing rockets and staging tunnel attacks, and there is an absence of a clear defensive interest in fighting in Gaza.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:What relevance does that have to this situation? Have you been keeping up with this conflict at all for the past few decades? Yes, and the palestinians have never been able to get meaningful support from the western world because they can never claim any kind of moral high ground as long as they continue to be violent. Least of all after 9/11.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Uhh, you misinterpret. They haven't gotten meaningful support because of Nazis and they're brown, while their oppressors are white. Get with the program, rear end in a top hat. Indians are brown too, and well, African-Americans, they're black! And yet, non-violent resistance to their white oppressors worked for both of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:"Give up because you are outnumbered, go down as a sheep to slaughter." What is it in the West Bank that is great exactly? The water shortages? The electricity shortages? The ever reducing amount of land and property available for Palestinians? There have been and are plenty of non-violent movements in the West Bank, they get shat upon by the Israeli establishment and lead nowhere. Israel will go to them when violent factions and international pressure make that the only option, and not before. Violent factions cant ever put enough pressure on Israel, and international pressure won't happen as long as violent factions dominate palestine. They have to commit to nonviolence in order to get international pressure on their side.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I too remember when African American non violent resistance got them equality with their oppressors. That was a good day in our glorious history. Also, I remember when the Indians weren't super poor and shed the yoke of colonial oppression through their mighty non violent protests. Oh wait, India is a shithole and per capita is one of the worst, most rapey places on the planet to be. Oops! Would it be better if it hadn't gotten independence and was instead still ruled by the British? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Yeah, there totally wasn't a videotaped summary execution of a black man in New York where the white murderer got off scot free, everything worked out great! Really? That compares to jim crow, segregation, lynching etc how?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:"Standing in SS uniform, manning a watchtower in the Warsaw ghetto" Did they do a good job of ending the IDF airstrikes? Were they aimed at airfields, or in some way designed to be effective in diminishing Israel's capability or motivations for conducting airstrikes? Was the outcome an end to IDF airstrikes? On balance, were they a good idea that achieved their objectives or a mistake that didn't?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:What do you think the objective was? To annihilate Israel in a firestorm of tiny homemade rockets? Or to attract international attention to their cause, which is a reduction in the ability of Israel to wage near total war on a civilian population? Their cause of... islamist terrorist violence against an ally of the west? Violence against non-violent movements is wrong and historically attracts a great deal of condemnation from people that have power. Violence against violent islamist terrorism is par for the course all around the world today. Unless the palestinians commit to nonviolence, their cause isnt one that people in power will ever support. 9/11 and so much of what followed pretty much made islamist violence toxic in the eyes of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Ad hominem stuff is all well and good, but it doesn't really speak to the question of whether or not non-violence, like that employed by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr King, is the best hope (and possibly only hope) for the palestinians. I used to support the Palestinians against Israel, I did for a long time. But, I don't anymore. I don't because the palestinians continue to make bad choices that are self-destructive and wrong. I believe it is. I believe that they have tried armed resistance for a long time, and it has only made things progressively worse for them. I think that after 9/11 and the war on terror, any hope armed islamist resistance to israel might have one had ended definitively. I dont believe that Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the other groups that run Gaza will ever be able to successfully lay claim to any kind of moral high ground in the opinions of the world's leaders as long as they continue be preach and practice violence. I don't believe any amount of 'martyring' their population by provoking israel to strike and then publicizing the non-combatant casualties will ever be effective, because Israel can continue to use its successful canard "we use our weapons to protect our people, they use their people to protect their weapons - there is a clear right and a clear wrong." I also believe that continued violence by Hamas in Gaza negatively affects the Palestinians in the West Bank. If nothing else, it makes Israeli right wingers seem more credible when they claim that the palestinians in the west bank have to be tightly controlled. To people who think that continued violence will lead to a good outcome - what's it supposed to look like? Why will things be different next time instead of the same way they've been every other time? I know that it's tempting to say "he's a bad man who said a bad thing when he was drunk and being stupid, so what he is saying now is wrong because he's bad," but surely we can all agree that self control is always for the best. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So you don't think the moral dimension of this conflict is important? You don't actually care whether Israel is in the wrong or the Palestinians are in the right? The problem is, at this point, they're both wrong, and they're both right. It's been a long and ugly and complicated conflict and history. But whether or not the palestinians should commit to nonviolence doesn't have anything to do with whether they are right or wrong. They should do it whether they are right or wrong, if anything, they should especially do it if they're right. The Indians were right, and following Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolence, they were successful in their struggle. African-Americans were right, and following Dr King's nonviolence, they were successful in their struggle. Being right doesn't mean that using bad methods which hurt their aims and doom their struggle is the right thing for them to do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Hakimashoui, you might have already stated your stance on this but this threads moving so fast I lost track. What's your stance on the PA's attempts to gain formal recognition of a Palestinian nation? You know, with foreign governments, the UN, the ICC, etc. I think it's fine, I think they should be recognized as a nation, the two-state solution is probably the best solution. I don't have any love lost on benjamin nethanyahu or the israeli right wing, or any right wing for that matter. I am skeptical that they will be able to actually make any sort of end-run around the wishes of the US and its allies. I think that the west bank should be treated better, that Israel should take pains to show that if the palestinians stop attacking israel, things will get better for them- there have to be incentives as well as disincentives. But, Hamas is not blameless for the state of the West Bank. Every time Hamas calls for the destruction of israel, or launches some kind of attack, it fuels the Israeli right and hurts the interests of the palestinians. That's probably not fair or right, but that's the way it works.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That's not at all what happened, though. In either case. Nor in South Africa. All of those movements had both violent and non-violent components, the former being necessary to force the oppressor to agree to the latter. if that's the case, then isn't it time for non-violence? The violence has gone on an awfully long time, it's hard to imagine that more of it is going to be better. If there is no non-violent component for the oppressor to agree to, then what's the point?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes to all; not that Israel would, as incarceration for prolonged periods tends to be an expensive proposition. Its more about the willingness for Palestinians to psychologically accept that Israel exists on Israel's terms, and that Israel shall always continue to exist on Israel's terms. Once there is mass acceptance for that amongst Palestinians, and actions taken accordinly such as revocation of application for ICC membership, then the peace process could resume. This is a very good point about people or land. The Arabs lost their wars with Israel. The Israelis won the land the same way anyone ever has, the same way the British Isles wound up being English and not Celtic (or Germanic) and why Romance languages are spoken throughout southwestern Europe, and of course why the USA is where it is. as an American, it would be hypocritical of me not to recognize that by winning, defending, and improving its territory that the Israelis have the same right to it as we have ours. During last summer's fighting in Gaza I was glued to the live streams, and some of them had chat rooms attached. I talked to an Arab guy and asked him why the focus on the land. My ancestors came to America from a great distance away, and thrived in a different land. Just because my great great grandparents or whatever were from Europe doesn't mean my home land is Europe. I asked him if Americans, Canadians, South Americans and so on could have thrived far from their ancestral homes, why not his people? His response was really fascinating and something I'd never heard before, he said he disagreed with the idea of people moving and making new nations, because "who do think think you are, God?" Anyway I think you're absolutely right about a generation of peace before Israelis learn to trust Palestinians. It's almost certainly not going to happen, but it might be the only thing that would lead to the best outcome for the Palestinians in the long run. You're a hundred percent right in the notion that so much of the problems come from the fact that the Palestinians were beaten - completely beaten - but still haven't surrendered. Back in the Gaza streams I would tell people "they've got to surrender, unconditionally, like Germany and Japan in ww2" you don't have peace without surrender, and you can't start moving forward without it either. I beseeched them to look at what happened to Germany and Japan after they surrendered. Both are free, stable, prosperous countries fully integrated into the world community. I also can't help but wonder as to what a Hamas run Palestinian state would look like. If the Hamas mission is any model for its policy, wouldn't it just end up declaring war on israel, or attacking israel and having israel declare war on it in pretty short order.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/arab-states-should-strike-gaza-yemen-says-advisor-mahmoud-abbas Hot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:How dare these subhumans try to resist a terrible Apartheid regime. Palestinians aren't subhumans, they don't have any less dignity than Israelis or Americans or anyone else. Two people of equal dignity fought wars, and one side won a clear and total victory. It isnt the first time and probably won't be the last. When the allies beat the axis, the vanquished did the honorable thing and surrendered unconditionally. The conflict ended, the victors imposed their will, and vanquished were able to move on. As long as the Palestinians keep acting like the Arabs didn't lose their wars with Israel, that the existence of Israel is some kind of open question, what can they possibly expect? The existence of Israel is not an open question. Reasonable people can't disagree about whether israel exists and will continue to exist. Israel won, why should it expect anything less than "we, Hamas and Islamic jihad, and other leaders of the Palestinian people unconditionally surrender our struggle to destroy Israel and unequivocally recognize its existence and right to exist on lands that were previously Arab controlled. We humbly ask Israel to help us rebuild and develop the lands left to us and commit fully to being a friendly neighbor and partner in perpetuity." The Israeli Palestinian conflict isn't the first time the world has seen dirty wars. Elsewhere, things are addressed After on by truth and reconciliation efforts and similar.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:What incentive does Israel have to disengage after a generation? You obviously don't have a problem with gross human rights violations, so there's no moral obligation there. Israel won't stop having the firepower to level Gaza on a whim, either, and Gaza isn't allowed to react to Israeli air strikes, kidnappings or other acts of aggression during this supposed 'peace,' either, let alone attempt to produce their own food or establish any kind of infrastructure or industry. Let's say twenty years pass and Gaza has been a good little dog. Why would Israel suddenly want to do anything differently, given that their ideal scenario is for the entire population of Gaza to disappear? Is "reacting" a good or constructive thing? Does it lead to better or worse outcomes for Palestinians?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is why Kuwait is the 19th province of Iraq. Kuwait had powerful allies, the Arabs who fought israel didn't. France had more powerful allies than Germany in ww2. Just happens to be how things work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:So far the best outcomes seem to be when they react, and Israel overreacts, and the the rest of the world takes notice again. Martyring their children deliberately so that their powerless sympathizers sympathize with them more is not, in my view, a good outcome. It's a big reason I dislike Hamas so much. It's like stabbing a lion with a stick until it becomes enraged, the at the last minute tossing you kid out for the lion to eat, to make the point that lions are bad because they eat your kids.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Naked Lincoln posted:There's something absolutely hilarious about people defending Israel by saying "land is just land, dude" and "can't you just live somewhere else?" Not really. The land is important to both people's, but they can't really share it. So, as is so often the case when two peoples want the same thing that they can't share, they fought over it. Israel won, so it's israel's. The Palestinians have to find a way to live with that if they want a good future for their children.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Kuwait lost a war with Iraq. The strong ate the weak. Then the rest of the world decided to go against the natural order, and spewed a bunch of bullshit about how invasions and annexations are wrong. As a consequence, the USA has bled itself over and over again in the Middle East for its sins against nature. The natural order isn't countries in a vacuum. It's me and my friends vs you and your friends.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:? But Hamas is fighting against current-day Israeli oppression of Palestinians, not whatever dumb idiot strawman continuation of the 1948 war you're making up. Hamas fights for the destruction of Israel and the death of Israelis, and doesn't keep it a secret. In what way did the rockets fight against the oppression of Palestinians? What is the cause and effect chain between "fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli population centers" and "hinder or end the Israelis ability to oppress Palestinians?" I've been wondering this since last summer and nobody's ever explained it. In my way of looking at things, killing random Israeli civilians doesn't have any ameliorating effect at all on how israel treats Gaza. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's what you get when you attack a foreign nation. You aren't going to be rewarded with development funds, nobody is coming to help. Yeah, watching the Gaza feeds I couldn't help but think "why the hell do they put up with this? Haven't they got guns in Gaza? Why aren't these people more terrified of being shot in their beds or on the streets or hanged from lamp posts by their own people for shooting these rockets than they are of the Israelis catching them???"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:If the US didn't want its "friend" in Kuwait to get gobbled up, it should have defended Kuwait instead of wringing its hands and crying after the fact and leading a teary invasion of Iraq in response. Maybe so, but instead it was the other way. When you're president, it can be your way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 17:18
|
|