|
The Insect Court posted:If you're looking for people who can explain why they dehumanize their enemy and legitimize violence even against peaceful civilians, you should probably talk to some of the usual suspects in the I/P thread. You keep saying this, but I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread or the last who has justified acts of Palestinian violence. The closest thing I can think of is people saying that such violence is to be expected under an occupation and that condemning them is not as useful as condemning the country that created that situation in the first place. But I can't think of a single person that has said "it's okay and good that this Palestinian knifed people."
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:This is correct, Israel will continue to exist side by side with Palestine because Israel has enjoyed US support for so long and is so well established it would be extremely unlikely a Palestinian state could threaten the existence of Israel even if it were hostile. Not that they wouldn't try.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:If you're looking for people who can explain why they dehumanize their enemy and legitimize violence even against peaceful civilians, you should probably talk to some of the usual suspects in the I/P thread. Haven't seen the documentary, is there a point where they discuss how young Palestinians in the West Bank can be before they're too young to be killed? Do they constantly make comparisons between Palestinians and the Third Reich to try to justify their hatred? The warsaw ghetto uprising was an act of terror according to you
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Whenever Israel kills a 14 year old there are people are falling over themselves to point out that they're totally an adult by Arab standards, yeah I'm sure there are, and those people are generally scumbag racists. Meanwhile, in these threads, there are people who fall all over themselves to explain how a 14 year old(or younger) Jew in the West Bank is a legitimate target. They never seem to see the irony, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694620?v=46E47D434FAE8D10324F7CD903E46371quote:Israel’s Education Ministry has disqualified a novel that describes a love story between an Israeli woman and a Palestinian man from use by high schools around the country. The move comes even though the official responsible for literature instruction in secular state schools recommended the book for use in advanced literature classes, as did a professional committee of academics and educators, at the request of a number of teachers. Well now, that's quite a thing. An arm of the state ranting about ethnic identity and the dangers of miscegenation. Ummmm. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Whenever Israel kills a 14 year old there are people are falling over themselves to point out that they're totally an adult by Arab standards, yeah It's funny because it happens here just as much as it happens there. Many Americans like to imagine they are the ones in the jackboots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694620?v=46E47D434FAE8D10324F7CD903E46371
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694620?v=46E47D434FAE8D10324F7CD903E46371 someone pleaase defend this, hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694620?v=46E47D434FAE8D10324F7CD903E46371 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694652 quote:Mk Merav Michaeli, the whip of the Zionist Union, also responded to the disqualification of the book. "Hordes of Arabs are on their way to the polling stations, Arabs are taking our girls – these are two sides of the same coin. In a place where people are disqualified, it's clear that books that represent them as humans are also disqualified. In a place where people with views that are unacceptable to the government are marked, it's clear that works of literature and art are also censored. The thought police is already here." Ytlaya posted:You keep saying this, but I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread or the last who has justified acts of Palestinian violence. The closest thing I can think of is people saying that such violence is to be expected under an occupation and that condemning them is not as useful as condemning the country that created that situation in the first place. But I can't think of a single person that has said "it's okay and good that this Palestinian knifed people." lol. It's like listening to to  talk about how they don't want cops to gun down black kids in principle, it's just that they don't seem to think it's acceptable to criticize them in any way when they do and every single concrete incident ultimately ends up being the victim's fault and a condemnation of black "culture". But don't you dare imply that racists, that's just playing the race card, and anyway they didn't affirmatively and explicitly state they want innocent black children to be murdered by the police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694620?v=46E47D434FAE8D10324F7CD903E46371 loving millennials just don't get how dangerous miscegenation is!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
You're missing some quote marks for Merav, since the first part is a Bibi quote. ... The weird part is that The Lover has been on the curriculum for decades now, and it features the same content.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Meanwhile, in these threads, there are people who fall all over themselves to explain how a 14 year old(or younger) Jew in the West Bank is a legitimate target. They never seem to see the irony, however. Are you referring to the guy you quoted from three or four threads back when asked to provide actual examples of anti-Semitism in these threads? Because that's the last time I recall you actually quoting the people you're constantly bringing up in your posts. Speaking of threads, I don't think you ever explained where Palestinians came from, after claiming they weren't indigenous to the region.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
"What's the best US analogy for the situation between Palestinians and settlers? I know! The Palestinians are the trigger-happy cops, and the settlers are the black children and teenagers! This is an accurate and fair representation of the power balance."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"What's the best US analogy for the situation between Palestinians and settlers? I know! The Palestinians are the trigger-happy cops, and the settlers are the black children and teenagers! This is an accurate and fair representation of the power balance." No wonder American cops are constantly pissing themselves, then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:lol. It's like listening to to What is your obsession with this? Do you masturbate while thinking about killing black people, or is it just Arabs? Maybe it's even Jews you hate at this point--I wouldn't be surprised, considering that you invent more anti-Semitism on your own to post here than you find to actually quote. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Ooh, TIC is back! Just in case you forgot, here's what you wrote back omn page 3: The Insect Court posted:"We should preferentially allow people of the _____ ethnic group citizenship rights in this country" So for the third time of asking, why must we assign preferential rights to a particular ethnic group? Why can't we treat them equally?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Nice to know that any time people get tired of TIC's gimmick, he can just take a break and come back to new people taking his bait
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:You keep saying this, but I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread or the last who has justified acts of Palestinian violence. The closest thing I can think of is people saying that such violence is to be expected under an occupation and that condemning them is not as useful as condemning the country that created that situation in the first place. But I can't think of a single person that has said "it's okay and good that this Palestinian knifed people." There are people, myself included, who consider the Palestinians to have a right to resistance and that many of these acts are justified. Their situation is similar to the ANC in South Africa.To quote Mandela: "All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence..." When the Palestinians have been oppressed and had war crimes comitted against them for decades and have no peaceful or legal recourse, which is the case, violence is a justifiable recourse. This does not legitimise all violence however and of course TIC is a completely dumb fucknuts who misinterprets it because if he engaged honestly with the arguements other people make then he's have nothing to say. Attacking military personnel is completely justifiable. They're the occupation force and a legitimate target. Attacking some random kid on the street, which is TIC's suggestion of what people are defending, is not justifiable and no-one has been trying to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:lol. It's like listening to to Actually, I think American police violence has more in common with the common IDF killings of unarmed Palestinian children - no one openly condones the killings, but the same narratives of "self-defense" and "accidents" and "unfortunate collateral damage" are used to justify making no effort to prevent such killings or punish the perpetrator. Even goes for non-Palestinians, like the African Jew shot by an overzealous security guard and lynched as a "terrorist" several months ago: the incident was loudly condemned, but nobody was actually punished for his death and the shooting was quietly ruled a "valid shoot". What was that you were saying about racism?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Nah, the Ferguson police are more like Hamas in that the latter too believes in executing civilians without a trial or due process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Nah, the Ferguson police are more like Hamas in that the latter too believes in executing civilians without a trial or due process. How is that different from the IDF's indiscriminate killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians? Is it simply the fact that the IDF do so with high-tech weaponry like bombs and artillery that isn't available to police forces and so are able to murder on a far larger scale?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:How is that different from the IDF's indiscriminate killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians? Is it simply the fact that the IDF do so with high-tech weaponry like bombs and artillery that isn't available to police forces and so are able to murder on a far larger scale? I think we all know that killing people with high-tech weapons (preferably American made) is 100% A-OK. It's throwing stones at people that's intolerable. </sarcasm>
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:Ooh, TIC is back! Listening to some people talk about Palestinians, you'd think they were not Muslims at all but followers of Khorne, taking the heads of Israelis for the Skull Throne. Those sorts of people don't exist in Palestine or anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Zas posted:someone pleaase defend this, hahahaha Maybe not so far as "defending" it, but Israeli government is so fragmented and chaotic right now that it's hard to extend the actions of a particular group to the whole because one minister or another might just go do whatever the hell they want without regard for the government's official stance. For example, it was recently discovered that even after the government cancelled a particularly controversial and sensitive round of settlement expansion (it would have practically split the West Bank in two), the Housing Ministry secretly kept working on the planning for it anyway, supposedly at the behest of the Housing Minister at the time. http://www.timesofisrael.com/pms-office-settlement-expansion-plan-came-from-minister-not-government/ quote:The Prime Minister’s Office on Tuesday distanced itself from reported plans to build thousands of new homes in a politically incendiary area of the West Bank, calling the initiative the brainchild of former housing and construction minister Uri Ariel, a member of the right-wing, pro-settlement Jewish Home party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:There are people, myself included, who consider the Palestinians to have a right to resistance and that many of these acts are justified. My sentiments exactly. To also keep it 100, in the last thread I defended violent action on the part of the palestinians against occupation forces and I totally got shut down by someone who said something like "detonating a suicide bomb in a nightclub isn't fighting against occupation." Which is correct but still kind of sidesteps the point about what is and is not a valid target of direct violent action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Probably the only thing that I occasionally see Palestinian supporters taking a position on that I completely disagree with is Hamas and other militant groups using rockets. While they rightly point out that there are hardly any deaths cause by them and they're so inaccurate that they almost always just hit some empty patch of desert, they don't address the issue that when the rockets do rarely kill someone it is overwhelmingly likely to be a civilian rather than a soldier (about 20:1 I believe). As a basic principle of warfare is to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, the usage of these weapons which do not distinguish and overwhelmingly target civilians is a war crime that cannot be condoned. That's probably my one major area of contention that sometimes comes up between me and other supporters of a Free Palestine. It's kinda weird that it's an area that the few hardcore zionists in this thread don't pick up on, although I suppose "Killing lots of civilians with bombs and rockets" isn't an area someone supporting Israel wants the conversation to drift towards seeing as Israel is way worse in that regard than actual bona fide terrorist groups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
On the other hand, I think it's good that the Palestinians do fire rockets. For one thing, it feeds the narrative that Israel has to live up to that Palestinians are an existential threat (even though they clearly are not, any more than a caged dog is an existential threat to the person holding the key). Israel has to jump through so many, many hoops maintaining this lie and eventually they're not going to be able to do it anymore. It's a loving awful situation but what other choice do they have? They can either go quietly into the night or take a stand and fight back, however futile. The "Well they should just quietly take it" is loving stupid because using the same reasoning you could very easily say that the Warsaw ghetto uprising was an Unreasonable act and they should have just quietly accepted their fate - kicking up a fuss is a terrible shame. Anything the Palestinians do, including existing, has caused them to be ground into the dirt. They should never be good little victims and quietly accept their destruction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Since they have virtually no other methods to fight back, and no way to do anything right now via the political process, it's really hard to blame those of them that do it. As mentioned, it rarely does anything and Israel has Iron Dome anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:On the other hand, I think it's good that the Palestinians do fire rockets. For one thing, it feeds the narrative that Israel has to live up to that Palestinians are an existential threat (even though they clearly are not, any more than a caged dog is an existential threat to the person holding the key). Israel has to jump through so many, many hoops maintaining this lie and eventually they're not going to be able to do it anymore. FlamingLiberal posted:Since they have virtually no other methods to fight back, and no way to do anything right now via the political process, it's really hard to blame those of them that do it. As mentioned, it rarely does anything and Israel has Iron Dome anyway. Being able to truthfully say that Palestinians have fired thousands of rockets at Israel helps them a lot in being able to present the Palestinians as an existential threat to the average uninformed person who listens to an interview a few minutes long with an Israeli spokesman. While I don't think any system or conceit like Palestine being a threat is eternal, I can't help but think them firing rockets has exactly the opposite effect as the one you hope for and helps present Palestine as a real threat. Not using rockets isn't the same as not fighting back. "They can either go quietly into the night or take a stand and fight back" is a false dichotomy in this case. Palestinians have plenty of methods to fight back that aren't inherently war crimes and which don't disproportionately target and kill civilians. They can fire mortars, which are accurate enough you can specifically target military installations several kilometres away and which historically have disproportionately killed more soldiers than civilians even though most people lump mortars and rockets together in terms of Hamas attacks. They can stab a soldier in the face as they pass them on the street or at a checkpoint. They can dig tunnels and raid Israeli outposts. They can run soldiers over in a car. They can shoot at soldiers with guns. They could even have suicide bombers, though I wouldn't recommend it based on all the negative connotations. None of these will be incredibly deadly or vastly successful in terms of the ratio of Israeli casualties to Palestinian casualties but that's the case with rockets anyway and you can hardly say they will be worse. Rockets hardly kill any Israelis and the inevitable backlashes (Cast Lead, Pillar of Defence, Protective Edge) will kill hundreds or thousands of Palestinian civilians. What is the inherent worth of rockets which seem to offer no concrete advantages, enshrine Hamas attacks as war crimes in fact rather than just propaganda and which kill civilians rather than soldiers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:What is the inherent worth of rockets which seem to offer no concrete advantages, enshrine Hamas attacks as war crimes in fact rather than just propaganda and which kill civilians rather than soldiers? They don't require the attacker to be in territory under direct Israeli military rule, they don't require attackers to be smuggled through a tightly controlled border or recruited from ethnic enclaves within Israel that are dominated and heavily surveilled by opposing political groups and will face collective punishment as a result, and they're far less likely to result in the death of the attacker? They're also visible from Gaza, which has significant domestic political effects. They're also cheap and can be built in Gaza out of piss and wreckage, circumventing the problems of tight border controls and Hamas' incredibly limited funding. Do you think Hamas is behind the East Jerusalem terror wave or something? Or do you just think that Hamas has a wide array or more effective techniques that are superior to rockets in every way that they're just not using? Edit: A common problem I see is that people ignore the Palestinian perspective, including such considerations as local domestic politics, and base their analysis of Palestinian activities based entirely on how Israel would portray them. "Why are they doing that thing? It lends more validity to the propaganda Israel was going to use anyway, while providing critical political points that help maintain their domestic popularity even in the face of more militant rivals! It's nothing but downsides!" Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Being able to truthfully say that Palestinians have fired thousands of rockets at Israel helps them a lot in being able to present the Palestinians as an existential threat to the average uninformed person who listens to an interview a few minutes long with an Israeli spokesman. While I don't think any system or conceit like Palestine being a threat is eternal, I can't help but think them firing rockets has exactly the opposite effect as the one you hope for and helps present Palestine as a real threat. It's closer to 5:1, and thats with a total of ~30 deaths (past 10 years, in Israel). They do many of those exact things you describe, but those all include more risk and often extremely limited resources. Palestinian rockets are usually little more than metal tubes with piss-sugar fuel, with all the damage coming from what kinetic energy it gains on the way up. This explains why they are so common, why they don't do much damage and why they aren't steerable. They are as simple as a rocket can get. Any less technological and you are throwing spears. The gaza strip is extremely resource deprived, and quite population dense. Mortars are more valuable than the rockets, if not just for the fact they usually have some sort of actual explosive in them. Stabbing a soldier in the face is essentially a death sentence, unless they are alone in an alley or something, as well as having possibly even worse reputation internationally. Digging tunnels is done, but takes longer, uses more resources (especially work-hours) and is quite a bit riskier. There's basically no downside to using rockets that Palestinians don't already and would continue to suffer from anyways. The rockets are there to keep the Palestinians in the news. Aside from Israel itself and the US, the IP situation is so horribly lopsided that world community is largely on the Palestinian side whenever the topic pops up. For the US, rocket attacks aren't going to be the deciding factor on support of Israel or Palestine either way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:It's closer to 5:1, and thats with a total of ~30 deaths (past 10 years, in Israel). They do many of those exact things you describe, but those all include more risk and often extremely limited resources. Palestinian rockets are usually little more than metal tubes with piss-sugar fuel, with all the damage coming from what kinetic energy it gains on the way up. This explains why they are so common, why they don't do much damage and why they aren't steerable. They are as simple as a rocket can get. Any less technological and you are throwing spears. The gaza strip is extremely resource deprived, and quite population dense. Mortars are more valuable than the rockets, if not just for the fact they usually have some sort of actual explosive in them. Stabbing a soldier in the face is essentially a death sentence, unless they are alone in an alley or something, as well as having possibly even worse reputation internationally. Digging tunnels is done, but takes longer, uses more resources (especially work-hours) and is quite a bit riskier. There's basically no downside to using rockets that Palestinians don't already and would continue to suffer from anyways. Can you back your ratio up? I count 24 civilian deaths including 6 children and 1 military death for the approx 20:1 ratio that I cited originally for rockets. The one death was to a Grad missile, a professionally manufactured missile which the Palestinians also use alongside Qassams. Also your explanations seem to hold only within a very narrow viewpoint. When firing a rocket the risk to the Palestinians doing the firing is relatively low at that specific point in time, but with Israel willing to launch missiles into areas where rockets have been fired from even when it's likely the perpetrators have gone (killing civilians in the area) and the willingness of Israel to launch massive attacks which kill hundreds or thousands in retaliation for missiles the risk is worse with rockets. Take Operation Cast Lead which was spurred on by rocket attacks. Over 1000 Palestinians died and their entire economy was wrecked for the benefit of killing a bare handful of Israels. We're talking worse than a 100:1 ratio of Palestinian Deaths:Israeli Deaths and thats if we include those not killed by rockets simply because they died in a conflict spurred on by rockets being fired. If you don't include them it's even worse!. When you view it in terms of the big picture and the results that come from it, the risks of firing rocket are absolutely appalling and the rationale of it being a strategic necessity absolutely falls apart. If trying to stab a soldier in the face resulted in a death one time in 10 and always resulted in the death of the Palestinian, it would still be a better strategy by an entire order of magnitude while not being a war crime that disproportionately targets civilians, including children. Frankly I don't care how effective firing rockets is, it's a war crime and is unsupportable even if it were effective. However it's not even that! Main Paineframe posted:They don't require the attacker to be in territory under direct Israeli military rule, they don't require attackers to be smuggled through a tightly controlled border or recruited from ethnic enclaves within Israel that are dominated and heavily surveilled by opposing political groups and will face collective punishment as a result, and they're far less likely to result in the death of the attacker? They're also visible from Gaza, which has significant domestic political effects. They're also cheap and can be built in Gaza out of piss and wreckage, circumventing the problems of tight border controls and Hamas' incredibly limited funding. The points you've laid out don't matter at all in and of themselves. They're just some of the factors which play into the outcomes we do care about like how effective the attacks are, who does it target and what are the drawbacks on the Palestinian side in terms of casualties. Now keeping in mind my response above to diebold and the massive amount of Palestinian casualties that are ultimately caused as retaliation for rockets, their lack of effectiveness in terms of casualties caused, the fact they mostly kill civilians and are thus war crimes and the ease with which they allow anti-Palestinian propoganda can you claim that there is any net benefit to using rockets? If so then on what basis. quote:Do you think Hamas is behind the East Jerusalem terror wave or something? Nope. quote:Or do you just think that Hamas has a wide array or more effective techniques that are superior to rockets in every way that they're just not using? I believe that what's effective for Hamas isn't what is most effective for the Palestinians. While I think that unlike Fatah they are truly working for Palestinian independence I believe that it has lost a lot of the militancy it had a decade or two ago and gained a good deal of institutional inertia where they focus on bettering Hamas to the extent that they prefer the methods that keep Hamas operatives safer because keeping Hamas operatives safe even if it causes massive collateral damage to the Palestinians population as a whole is preferable to them. quote:Edit: A common problem I see is that people ignore the Palestinian perspective, including such considerations as local domestic politics, and base their analysis of Palestinian activities based entirely on how Israel would portray them. "Why are they doing that thing? It lends more validity to the propaganda Israel was going to use anyway, while providing critical political points that help maintain their domestic popularity even in the face of more militant rivals! It's nothing but downsides!" Well the first half of that sentence is a downside. Lending validity to Israel's anti-Palestinian propaganda is a bad thing. Sure it might have happened anyway, but you don't have to literally commit war crimes to help Israels arguments. For the second half of the sentence, I don't believe it follows. I am not saying Palestinian militants become less militant or they stop trying to kill Israelis. The guys who would be firing rockets don't just sit around twiddling their thumbs, they carry on attacking but in different ways. I'm saying they focus on different methods of military action, which happen to be those which kill Israeli soldiers rather than civilians and children. You seem to have made a leap of logic that that will automatically erode their domestic support without explanation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Israel is going to attack and employ massively disproportionate retaliation whether Palestinians launch rockets or not, so I don't really see why that is an argument to not fire the rockets. And I don't see anyone saying it is a strategic necessity, but its one of the only things they can do. This isn't even all Hamas, there are plenty of extremist groups within Gaza that do not care as much about potential reprisal. This also leads to domestic unrest if/when Hamas is seen to be doing too little. Hamas already gets accusations of being too cozy with the Israelis for their participation in one sided peace negotiations, which can drive support towards the groups perceived to be doing something. A process which helped Hamas itself gain power under Fatah. Though you were right about the casualties, I thought I was using a source that had only rocket attacks because of phrasing, but it had compiled rocket and mortar fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Israel is going to attack and employ massively disproportionate retaliation whether Palestinians launch rockets or not, so I don't really see why that is an argument to not fire the rockets. And I don't see anyone saying it is a strategic necessity, but its one of the only things they can do. This isn't even all Hamas, there are plenty of extremist groups within Gaza that do not care as much about potential reprisal. This also leads to domestic unrest if/when Hamas is seen to be doing too little. Hamas already gets accusations of being too cozy with the Israelis for their participation in one sided peace negotiations, which can drive support towards the groups perceived to be doing something. A process which helped Hamas itself gain power under Fatah. Israel doesn't act in a vacuum and has to answer to international pressure and its own citizens. It can't simply kill Palestinians on a massive scale for absolutely no reason, it needs some kind of rationale even if it's not a good one. Stopping rocket attacks and destroying stockpiles of weapons buys them some leeway. If Palestinians to were adopt a more opportunist method of attacking with ordinary domestic weapons like knives and cars, they could hardly bomb massive amounts of Palestinian homes on the basis that there were hidden stockpiles of knives and cars that they were bombing. I can't say for certain that it would stop, but when you damage Israel's rationale for killing people en masse then surely at least reduce Israel's attacks and stopping the Cast Lead/Protective Edge/etc level of attack is a possibility. Besides if all you can say is "If in this one particular way rockets may only be equal with other methods of attack rather than worse" then it's not really a reason to stick with rockets seeing as they still have separate disadvantages like being inherently a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJmuHNDcXLQ
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Israel doesn't act in a vacuum and has to answer to international pressure and its own citizens. Israeli citizens pressure consists in increasing Bibi's popularity whenever he's bombing the Palestinians, and decreasing it whenever he isn't. team overhead smash posted:It can't simply kill Palestinians on a massive scale for absolutely no reason, it needs some kind of rationale even if it's not a good one. 2. This land is ours, God gave this land to us (I've got the receipt somewhere) 3. The alternative to killing them is living with them, and then we wouldn't get to be our pure-blooded country built on racial and religious supremacy team overhead smash posted:If Palestinians to were adopt a more opportunist method of attacking with ordinary domestic weapons like knives and cars, they could hardly bomb massive amounts of Palestinian homes on the basis that there were hidden stockpiles of knives and cars that they were bombing. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
 hsp[py new goy hyear (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
RODEO
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:lol. It's like listening to to But Israelis are not black people in this analogy; they are the cops/white people. It makes literally zero sense to equate them with a racial minority, especially when the other group in question actually is a discriminated against minority within their country's borders. Israelis are not a victim in any sense of the word here; they have far, far more power and control over their society than Palestinians do. To turn your own dumb analogy against you, your posts are exactly like all the people who complain about how anti-police sentiment is actually unfairly discriminating against cops. I'm honestly curious as to what goes through your head when you read a post like this. Is it that you genuinely believe that Jewish people in Israel are constantly being faced with rampant discrimination from a Palestinian-run government in Israel? Or do your eyes just glaze over or something? I understand that you seem to look at most of the people who post in this thread in the exact same way all of us probably look at people who complain about "thugs" (that is, people who are obviously concealing racism). But objecting to Israeli policy/actions is something that is actually legitimate independent of the fact that many antisemitic people also hate Israel. With all other examples of concealed racism, it is easy to explain why the things the racists in question say are dumb and without basis. But "Israel does a bunch of disproportionately bad stuff" is something with a bunch of hard evidence, and Israel is not synonymous with "Jewish people." I don't want to "pull a race card" here, but it honestly puts me in a really uncomfortable position when people like you conflate anti-Israeli beliefs with antisemitism. It results in a bunch of people (in the US at least) believing that, as a Jew, you must automatically strongly support Israel and leads towards awkward situations where pro-Israeli people will start commiserating with you under the assumption that you hold similar views. It is generally easy to identify when people are trying to use the issue of Israel to mask their antisemitism; you'll often see people (including a couple posters in these threads) make comments along the lines of "Israelis are trash", and it's kind of obvious in that case that they are viewing Israel as being representative of an ethnic group rather than a country/government. It is true that a bunch of racism is going to get mixed into any situation where a group (perceived or otherwise) or country with a different ethnicity than your home country does evil things. Anti-Arab racism due to terrorism or anti-Japanese racism during WW2 are good examples. But that doesn't change the material fact that, for example, Japan did a ton of terrible things, and it also doesn't in any way require one to discriminate against individuals of that nationality or dominant ethnic group.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Also your explanations seem to hold only within a very narrow viewpoint. When firing a rocket the risk to the Palestinians doing the firing is relatively low at that specific point in time, but with Israel willing to launch missiles into areas where rockets have been fired from even when it's likely the perpetrators have gone (killing civilians in the area) and the willingness of Israel to launch massive attacks which kill hundreds or thousands in retaliation for missiles the risk is worse with rockets. Take Operation Cast Lead which was spurred on by rocket attacks. Over 1000 Palestinians died and their entire economy was wrecked for the benefit of killing a bare handful of Israels. We're talking worse than a 100:1 ratio of Palestinian Deaths:Israeli Deaths and thats if we include those not killed by rockets simply because they died in a conflict spurred on by rockets being fired. If you don't include them it's even worse!. So what's the strategic upside of Israel bombing civilians even when they know they won't hit Hamas operatives? You're applying a nasty double standard here, where it's a propaganda success for Israel if Hamas commits war crimes against them, but a propaganda failure for Hamas (and also their fault) if Israel commits war crimes against Gaza. If any activity that could possibly injure civilians is a victory for the other side on the international stage, then I'm pretty sure every Gaza hospital bombing makes up for quite a number of rockets. And if you say that only Israel gets propaganda victories, then it doesn't matter what Hamas does because the deck is so badly stacked against them that there's little point in them trying to delay their defeat in that arena. You're asking the wrong question - it should be "who does it provide a net benefit to". Obviously the rockets are perceived by somebody as having a net benefit to themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be getting launched in the first place! What the hell do you think - that Hamas and other Gazan groups have this long list of things they can do that bring them benefit, but instead they're doing something that they don't perceive of as providing them any benefit at all? Hamas isn't doing so well that they can afford to throw away resources in order to do something they think just damages their strategic position. "It might have happened anyway" is actually a very important factor, because if a strong power is just looking for an excuse to bully or invade a weaker power, then it will happen sooner or later no matter how hard the weaker power tries to avoid giving that excuse. It's simply inescapable (and, if necessary, can eventually be provoked or faked by the strong power in order to manufacture the excuse), and pretending that the excuse was the cause or even a cause is little more than international victim-blaming. First of all, Hamas doesn't have many other military options, and those that it does have are extremely limited and can only be done rarely, expensively, and at the cost of significant and often-unrenewable resources. Second, being able to see the strikes against the enemy from your own front lawn has a significant morale component - for example, the Israelis who dragged out lawn chairs to party while they watched Gaza explosions from a hilltop. Third, Hamas needs to keep their militant activities public in order to maintain political dominance over the more militant group. If Hamas activities team overhead smash posted:Israel doesn't act in a vacuum and has to answer to international pressure and its own citizens. It can't simply kill Palestinians on a massive scale for absolutely no reason, it needs some kind of rationale even if it's not a good one. Stopping rocket attacks and destroying stockpiles of weapons buys them some leeway. If Palestinians to were adopt a more opportunist method of attacking with ordinary domestic weapons like knives and cars, they could hardly bomb massive amounts of Palestinian homes on the basis that there were hidden stockpiles of knives and cars that they were bombing. On the other hand, recorded history. The excuse for Protective Edge, as I recall, was the kidnapping and murder of just three people in the West Bank. An ordinary domestic attack, nothing to do with rockets, but it was still enough to kill a thousand Gazans. Like I said, if the strong power wants to attack and is just waiting for an excuse, then they will find one. The question is not "if" but "when", and "when" is measured in "months" rather than "years". I'm not just talking Israel - the history of imperialism is just rife with cases like this, and it always ends up as an ultimately inescapable predicament. There's been tons of cases of that kind of unspoken ultimatum, and it almost always ends badly for the little guy. My personal favorites are when the little guy actually repels the initial invasion, treats the invaders humanely and lets them leave in peace in order to try and preserve diplomatic relations, and then gets obliterated by a far larger second wave because their foe simply could not tolerate the embarrassment of their glorious Empire losing to the natives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 15:06
|
|